CONCEPT OF ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN ADMINISTRATION

ETHICS: is a set of moral principles and values that governs the behaviours of a
person or
group with respect to what is right or wrong. Ethics sets standards as to what is
good or bad in the
customary values and rules of conduct and decision making in administration (lewis
1985).

ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION : is a set of rules and regulations governing public

employees
behaviour which is important for gaining and maintaining trust and support from the
citizens.

Ethics deals with internal values that are a part of corporate culture and shape
decisions
concerning social responsibility with respect to the external environment. An
ethical issue
is present in a situation when the actions of a person or organisation may harm or
benefit
other.

MANAGERIAL ETHICS: is a set of principles and rules dictated by upper management

that define
what is right or wrong in an organisation simply, ethics tell us what is the
difference
between right and wrong thing.

INTRODUCTION OF ETHICS.
The social and political institutions are reflections of society and its values. An
efficient and technologically sound administrative machinery, unless it maintains
the highest
standards of personal integrity, probity and rectitude at each level of
bureaucracy, does not
serve the public, but it services a self perpetuating and exploitative system.
Ethics and good
governance support each other for stability of society. Ethics in administration is
a set of
rules and regulations governing public employees‟ behaviour which is important for
gaining
and maintaining trust and support from the citizens. Ethics in administration
essentially
refers to customary values and rules of conduct in public administration. A society
looks for
values like selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty
and
leadership among the institutions and individuals those are entrusted with
administrative
responsibility.
ETHICS:MEANING
The word ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos which means way of living.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct. It
consists of a code
of conduct of human beings living in a society. Ethics examines the rational
justification for
our moral judgements ; it studies what is morally right or wrong, just or
unjust. Together,
 they combine to define how individuals choose to interact with one another.
Ethics is a set
of standards that society places on itself and which help guide behaviour,
choices and actions.
Ethics refers to well founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what
humans
ought to do usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society,
fairness or specific
virtues. It also imposes the reasonable obligations to refrain from doing
certain wrong things.
Ethical standards also include the virtues of honesty compassion and loyalty.
Chester
Barnard has described the ethical conduct or moral behaviour as “ governed by
beliefs or
feelings of what is right or wrong regard less of self- interest or immediate
consequences of a
decision to do or not to do specific things under particular conditions”. The
definition of
social ethics embraces a set of norms, assessments and opinions, which are
characteristic of a
group of people. Ethics are standards of conduct. These standards can be applied
to personal
behaviour. Ethics distinguish between the right and wrong ways directing
behaviour in our
personal and professional life.
Ethics and morals are intimately related. Moral standards are expressed in
terms of
values as a framework that should be endorsed and followed. Ethics are based on
morals and
they provided specific norms that should guide one‟s conduct in concrete
interactive
situation. As governance involves several stakeholders who have to interact with
each other
and the government in the process of governance there is a need for a framework of
norms or
rules (codified norms) that guides the interaction. There are two major theoretical
orientations regarding ethics: Universalistic theory of ethics and consequentialist
theories of
ethics. The former has been articulated by Emanuel Kant. Several scholars
contributed to
consequentialist theories. The central postulate of the consequenstilist theory is
that each
individual has to assess the consequences of his/her action for the other(s).
Consequences
have to be seen in terms of potential harm (for life, livelihood), dignity of the
person, fairness
and autonomy. In today's context we also have to include consequences for
environment.
ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION:
"Ethics" denotes the professional code of morality in civil service. They
constitute the
moral character of civil servants. They regulate the conduct and behaviour of
different
categories of civil servants. They provide „rule of the game‟. The code of ethics
consists of
traditions, precedents, and standards which have to be kept up by the civil
servants. The civil
servants are expected to set up high moral standards not only for themselves for
the
community at large, particularly, in the context of the growing importance of
administration
and its impact on the society.
We may establish a definition of “administrative ethics” using the words: norms,
legal
regulations, assessments of public administration officials, public service. Public
service
ethics are a prerequisite to, and underpinning of public trust, and are a keystone
of good
governance. Public service is a public trust. Citizens expect public servants to
serve the
public interest with fairness and to manage public resources properly on a daily
basis.
Democratic values such as equality, law, justice, rights and freedom have moral
connotations and require a strong commitment from civil servants. Civil servants
are duty
bound to uphold these values. There is an urgent need to acknowledge the moral
basis of
governance. Civil servants have an obligation to serve the public.
Ethical Governance as a neutral concept never existed. At every stage in human
civilization ethical questions haunted the rulers/state agencies. However there
appears to be a
broad consensus as what constitutes ethical governance which became part of
governance
apparatus like rule of law, equality, corruption free governance etc.
Paul H Appleby (in his book Morality and administration in Democratic Government)
preferred the expression „morality‟ to „ethics‟. He argues thatmorality and
administration
cannot be separated. He remarked, “it is not merely bigger government that
ultimately
matters; what is significant is that morality in administration alone could ensure
better
government. One would not doubt that the morality in administration is sustained by
patience, honesty, loyalty, cheerfulness, courtesy, and like traits”. He delineated
the
following attributes of a moral administrator:
1. A sense of responsibility
2. Skills in communication and personnel administration
3. Ability to cultivate and utilize institutional resources
4. Willingness to engage in problem-solving and to work with others as a team
5. Personal confidence to initiate new ideas
6. Prefers to be influenced by public needs, interests and sensitivities rather
than
resorting to the useof raw bureaucratic power.

IMPORTANCE IN ADMINISTRATION
Individual is the basic unit of society. Individual behaviour determines the nature
and
structure of society and the values surrounding it. Here comes the role of ethics
which guides
the human action to establish peaceful, cooperative and healthy society. The
importance of
ethics in administration can be explained in the following manner:
1) To check the arbitrary actions of Civil Servants
2) To promote the sense of administrative responsibility
3) To establish and promote the good relations between the citizen and civil
service
4) To preserve and promote social wellbeing , public interest, and common good
5) To control that part of administrative power and discretion which cannot be
 controlled by formal laws methods and procedures
6) To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative process
7) To strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of public administration
8)To foster and maintain high morals among all categories of civil servants

DETERMINANTS OF ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION

The levels of ethics in governance are dependent on the historical, social,
economic, political,
legal-judicial factors of the country. Ethics evolves over a long period of time
and is
influenced, during its nurturance and growth by a variety of factors.
1) The historical factors: The history of a country marks a great influence on the
ethical
character of the governance system. The long legacy of unethical practices in
governance is
likely to enhance the tolerance level for administrative immorality. The forces of
probity and
immorality co-exist in all phases of human history. Precedents and traditions set
by the top
administrators, ministers and legislators also play an important role.
2) The socio-cultural factors: The administrative class emerges from the society
itself.
Naturally, therefore, the mores values and behavioural pattern prevalent in the
society are
likely to be reflected in the conduct of administrators. It is unlikely to expect
the
administrators will be insulated from the orientations and norms evidenced in
society. The
family system and the educational system are influential instruments of
socialisation. If these
institutions underscore honesty and ethics, the impact on the mindset of citizens
is likely to be
highly positive and powerful.
Religion also plays significant role in influencing the work ethics of its people.
Protestant ethics mainly focuses on hard work, which has helped several Christian
societies to
enhance their per capita productivity. While, Judaism has valued performance of
physical
labour by its followers. The Hindu and Islamic societies have generally considered
physical
labour to be of lower rank than the mental work. These are subjective issues but
make for an
interesting study.
3) Legal-Judicial factors: A neatly formulated law, with a clear stress on the
norms of
fair conduct and honesty, is likely to distinguish chaff from grain in the ethical
universe. An
efficient and effective judiciary with fast-track justice system will prove to be a
roadblock to
immorality in public affairs. Conversely, a slow moving judiciary with a concern
for letter
rather than the spirit of law will dither and delay and even help the perpetrators
of crimes by
giving them leeway through prolonged trails and benefits of doubt. Likewise, the
anti#corruption machinery of the government with its tangled web of complex
procedures
unintendly grants relief to the accused who are indirectly assisted by dilatory and
knotty
procedures.
4) Political factors: The political leadership perhaps the single most potent
influence on
the mores and values of citizens. The rulers do rule the minds, but in a democracy
particularly, all political parties, pressure groups and the media also influence
the orientations
and attitudes on moral questions. The administrative system cannot remain immune to
the
levels of political morality. Criminalisation of politics and politicisation of
bureaucracy is the
root cause for the decline of ethical standards in administration.
5) Other factors:
In addition to the above mentioned factors the following factors also play an
important role in influencing the ethics in administration.

1. Communication patterns in the administrative system.

2. Effectiveness of disciplinary action on the civil servants.
3. Ethical standards and values existing in the society.
4. The soundnessof service conditions of civil servants particularly salary.
5. Dynamics of internal relations.
6. Soundness of training programmes organized to promote the professional
consciousness among administrators
7. Attitude of general public towards the administrators
Ethics is also integral to public administration. In public administration, ethics
focuses on
how the public administrator should question and reflect in order to be able to act
responsibly. Strategic implementation and commitment to change with proper
communication channels and having ethical safeguards in place are expected to
enhance the
application of ethical guidelines.

ELEMENTS AND IMPORTANCE ASPECT OF ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION

a) Integrity: An administrator would undertake an administrative action on the
basis of
honesty and not use his power, position and discretion to serve his personal
interest
and the illegitimate interests of other individuals or groups. Integrity is much
more
than financial honesty.
b) Responsibility and accountability: An administrator would not hesitate to accept
responsibility for his decisions and actions. He would hold himself morally
responsible for his actions and for the use of his discretions while making
decisions.
Moreover, he would be willing to be held accountable to higher authorities of
governance and even to the people who are the ultimate beneficiaries of his
decisions
and actions.
c) Loyalty to the nation:A civil servant while performing his duties would keep in
view
the impact of his action on his nation‟s strength and prestige. They should have in
their minds a concern and respect for their nation which automatically raises the
level
of service rendered and the products delivered.
d) Efficiency: an administrator would ensure the highest standards of quality in
administrative decisions and actions and would not compromise with standards
because of convenience or complacency. In a competitive international environment,
an administrative system should faithfully adhere to principle of efficiency and
quality management
e) Impartiality: impartiality means acting solely according to the merits of the
case and
serving governments of different political parties and the general public equally
well
and in the same spirit. In practice, impartiality often requires public servants to
refrain from opinions, positions or actions that demonstrate a bias toward or
against a
particular cause or course of action, including the defence of government policies.
Apolitically impartial public service supports the government of whichever
political
party the electorate chooses.
f) Neutrality: political neutrality is an essential ingredient of civil service in
a
democratic setup for integrity the efficiency of administration. It means that the
civil
service should give free and frank advice to the government impartially and without
any political consideration. It also means the implementation of the decisions of
the
government by the civil service faithfully whether such decisions were in
consonance
with their advice or not.
g) Dedication to public service: Spirit of service and sacrifice is an essential
ingredient
of public services and public officials should feel inspired that they are working
for a
national cause. They should realize the importance of noble mission of serving the
people. An attitude of dedication to the set goals of organisations should bean
indispensable trait of the top leaders. It is not just performing development
linked
administrative duties; it is taking action and encouraging people to take action
required to bring about structural changes and growth in the economy. This needs to
be supplemented by their belief in the organisational goals.
h) Compassion: an administrator, without violating the prescribed laws and rules,
would demonstrate compassion for the poor, the disabled and the weak while using
his discretion in making decisions. At least, he would not grant any benefits to
the
stronger section of society only because they are strong and would not deny the due
consideration to the weak, despite their weakness
i) Devotion to the duty (work commitment):an administrator would be committed to
his duties and perform his work with involvement, intelligence and dedication. This
would entail a respect for time, punctuality and fulfilment of promises made. Work
is
considered not as a burden but as an opportunity to serve and constructively
contribute to society.
j) Justice: those responsible for formulation and execution of policies and
decisions of
governance would ensure that respect is shown to the principles of equality,
equity,
fairness, impartiality and objectivity and no special favours are doled out on the
criteria of status position, power, gender, class, caste and wealth.

ETHICS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

PUBLIC SERVICE is a body or department in the executive arm of government
responsible for the execution of the policies and programmes of the government.
The public service and its workers are referred to as civil servant who perform
purely administrative functions which entails formulation and implementation
of government policies. The poublic service in Nigeria consist of ministries
departments and agencies (MDAs)according to DORASAMY 2009. The armed forces, the
police,
public corporation and government owned companies are not in the civil service,but
collectively called public service and their workers, including the civil servant
are called public servant.

PURPOSE OF ETHICS.
ETHICS play important in the society. First, ethics provide man with guidelines for
regulating and controlling its conducts and actions in life(EZEANI 2006).
For instances, the code of conduct for public officers which government provides
for its workers is to regulate their actions and conducts to ensure quality and
standard services rendered.
Even institutions like universities,polytechnics,and private organisations
have guildlines for appointment,promotion and discipline of erring workers.
They are therefore provided to ensure uniformity, fairness, and standard in
appointment, promotion and displine of errying workers in the systems.
This constituents the second purpose of ethics. Thirdly, according to Uduigwomen,
(2001,2003),Ethics serve the purpose of helping man to discover the general or
universal principles to guide human conduct.
It is apt to say that the relaxing of ethical principles and norms in most
public organisations accounts partly for the high level of corruption and
inefficiency
that has greeted the Nigerian public sector. For example, there are ethical
standard or laws spelling out punishment for embezzlement of public funds and other
corrupt practices but which are hardly implemented.Thus,corruption strives in the
system and where its appear that some people are over the law.

THE NOLAN COMMITTEE IN BRITAIN ON ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life was sometimes referred to as Nolan
Committee after its first Chairman, Lord Nolan, was set up in 1994. It is not a
parliamentary
committee but reports to the Prime Minister. Its terms of reference are to "examine
concerns
about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements
relating to
financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations for changes in
present
arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of
respectability in
public life." In 1997, the Committee‟s terms of reference were extended by the
Prime
Minister Tony Blair “to review issues in relation to the funding of political
parties, and to
make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements”. The Committee‟s
terms
of reference were further clarified in a House of Lords written Parliamentary
Question on
28th February 2013 to explain that the Committee‟s remit means it “can examine
issues
relating to the ethical standards of the delivery of public services by private and
voluntary
sector organisations, paid for by public funds, even where those delivering the
services have
not been appointed or elected to public office.”

The Nolan Committee’s Seven Principles of ethical conduct.

The Committee has published Fourteen Reports so far. The First Report of the
Committee (Published on 11May, 1995), drew up the Seven Principles of Public Life
as a re#statement of the general principles of conduct underpinning public life,
and stated that:
a) All public bodies should draw up Codes of Conduct incorporating the Seven
Principles;
b) Internal systems for maintaining standards should be supported by independent
scrutiny;
C) More needed to be done to promote and reinforce standards of conduct in public
bodies, in particular through guidance and training, including induction training.
These Seven Principles of Public Life, popularly known as the „Nolan principles‟
which are
included in the Ministerial Code are as follows:
d) Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public
interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for
themselves, their family or their friends.
e) Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any
financial or
other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to
influence
them in the performance of their official duties.
f) Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public
appointments,
awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders
of
public office should make choices on objective criteria.
g) Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions
and
actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is
appropriate
to their office.
h) Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and
restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
i) Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests
relating
to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way
that
protects the public interest.
j) Leadership – Holders of public office should promote and support these
principles by
leadership and example.

Governments and international agencies draw their attention to developing and

maintaining high standards and values, ethics and conduct in public administration
as an
important measure for combating corruption. These are regarded as essential
components of
ethical architecture of public life. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) called for an ethical infrastructure referring to a range of
tools and
processes for regulating or checking undesirable behavior and/or providing
incentives to
encourage good conduct of public officials.

Conclusion:
All modern governments suffer from the persistent preoccupation with procedures
and
functional rationality to the exclusion of ethical values and standards. Ethical
concerns and
dilemmas in governance can be taken care of through appropriate laws, rules,
regulations and
conscience as source of ethical guidance. Responsive and clean Administration
depends on
 adherence by the employees in public service to ethical standards and the basic
principles of
constitution, such as rule of law. The solution for the problems of probity in
governance lies
in curbing the menace of corruption and increasing information sharing and
transparency in
government through means like Right to Information and Citizen‟s Charters etc.

ACCOUNTABILITY.
Accountability, in terms of ethics and governance, is equated with answerability,
blameworthiness, liability,
and the expectation of account-giving. As in an aspect of governance, it has been
central to discussions related to problems
in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) and individual contexts.
In leadership roles,
accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions,
products, decisions, and policies including the
administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or
employment position and encompassing the obligation to report,
explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of

"being called to account for one's actions".
It is frequently described as an account giving relationship between individuals,
e.g.
"A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A's (past or future)
actions and decisions, to justify them,
and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct".Accountability cannot
exist without proper accounting practices;
in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.
Another key area that contributes to accountability is good records management.

"Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed

form of computare (to calculate),
which in turn derived from putare (to reckon). While the word itself does not
appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman England,
the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities
related to governance and
money-lending systems that first developed in Ancient
Egypt,Israel,Babylon,Greece,and Rome.

POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Political accountability: is when a politician makes choices on behalf of the
people and the people have the ability to reward or sanction
the politician.In representative democracies citizens delegate power to elected
officials through periodic elections in order to represent
or act in their interest.The challenge then becomes why would rulers with such
power,who presumably have divergent interests from the people,
act in the best interest of the people? Citizens can rely on rewards or sanctions
to threaten or reward politicians who might otherwise
act in a manner that is antithetical to the people's interest.Accountability
occurs when citizens only vote to re-elect representatives
who act in their interests, and if representatives then select policies that will
help them be re-elected."Governments are 'accountable'
if voters can discern whether governments are acting in their interest and
sanction them appropriately, so that those incumbents
who act in the best interest of the citizens win reelection and those who do not
lose them."
Representatives can be held accountable through two mechanisms: electoral
replacement and rational anticipation.
In electoral replacement citizens vote to replace representatives who are out of
step with their interests. Rational anticipation requires
that representatives anticipate the consequences of being out of step with their
constituency and then govern in accordance with citizens
'wishes to avoid negative consequences. Accountability can still be achieved even
if citizens are not perfectly knowledgeable about
representative's actions as long as representatives believe that they will be held
accountable by citizens they will still act in accordance
with the citizens' interests.

ELECTORAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Electoral accountability refers to citizens using the vote to sanction or reward
politicians, but other forms of political accountability
do exist.
Some researchers have considered the accountability using formal theory, which
makes assumptions about the state of the world to draw larger
conclusions. Voters can hold representatives accountable through the process of
sanctioning, voters voting the incumbent out of office
in response to poor performance.While politicians face a decrease in vote share as
a result of poor performance, they are less likely
to see an increase in vote share for good performance.Selection, voters choosing
candidates based on who will best represent their interests,
is another method by which voters hold their representative accountable.These
methods of accountability can occur simultaneously with voters
holding representatives accountable using sanctioning and selection.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY.
Refer to the liability of government servants to give a satisfactory account of
the use of their power and resources.
It is often that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therefore, checking the accountability is the basis of the success of Public
Administration.

TO PROVIDE PUBLIC GOODS IN ADMINISTRATION.

Politicians may be incentivized to provide public goods as a means of
accountability.
The ability of voters to attribute credit and blame of outcomes also determines
the extent of public goods provision.
Research suggests that public goods provision is conditional on being able to
attribute outcomes to politicians as opposed to civil servants.
This can be enhanced by more short-run and visible inputs and outcomes such as
famine relief or drinking water, whereas low-visibility issues
such as sanitation and education may be more difficult to attribute credit and
thus less likely to provided.
Another condition determining how voters use the provision of public goods
to hold leaders accountable is whether the prioritization
of public goods is determined either directly via vote or delegated to a governing
body.An experiment in New Mexico regarding proposed spending
during the state's 2008 special summer legislative session provides evidence that
legislators update their positions when learning about voters'
policy preferences, indicating representative democracy can increase
accountability when politicians learn about voters' preferences.
A 2016 experiment in Afghanistan regarding rural development projects, however,
finds that when voters directly prioritize their preferences at the ballot box,
they perceive the quality of local government to be higher than when a governing
committee prioritizes development projects.[26] These contrasting outcomes
highlight the trustee-vs-delegate debate, though the lack of objective superior
outcomes in projects decided by vote as opposed to
 committee in the Afghanistan experiment indicate neither is superior to the other
in determining which public good should be given priority.
Other research indicates voters use elections to hold politicians accountable for
the provision of public goods.
Politicians may also have incentives to respond to pressure for public
goods provision in electoral autocracies.
There is evidence that as autocratic governments lose seats in their party
legislatures,
they respond by increasing spending on public goods such as education, healthcare,
and pensions.
There is further evidence suggesting higher quality of life, civil liberties, and
human development in electoral autocracies,
lending credence to the theory that autocratic rulers use elections as a
bellwether against popular

While the introduction of elections is generally thought to improve public goods

provision,
in some cases researchers have shown that it may reduce its quality.For example,
the introduction of direct elections for local district
office in Indonesia resulted in political interference in the hiring process for
bureaucrats in the public education sector,
reducing the quality of education provision: politicians were incentivized to dole
out patronage positions in the education sector,
especially in election years, and where such positions were added, student test
scores were lower.

Non-electoral.
Governments are held accountable if citizens can punish and/or reward the
government to influence it to pursue the best interests of citizens.
While scholars who study democratic theory emphasize the role of elections in
ensuring accountability,another strand of scholars investigates
non-electoral forms of accountability in democracies and non-democracies and the
conditions that make unelected leaders represent
the interests of the general public.

Selectorate.
Belsky et al. point out, whereas, under more democratic governance accountability
is built into the institution of the state
by a habit of regular elections, accountability in autocratic regimes relies on a
selectorate; a group that legitimizes or delegitimizes
the autocrats powers according to selectorate theory. The primary mechanism at a
selectorate's disposal is deposition, which is a form of exit.
Beyond that institutions can act as credible restraints on autocracy as well.

Civil society.
In democracies, voluntary associations, interest groups, and associational
activity can improve the performance of the government.
One study has also shown that civil society organizations such as NGOs can
increase the performance of local government according
to the central government's standards by monitoring and disclosing information
about local government performance in authoritarian
regimes like China. Solidary groups – groups based on shared moral obligations and
interests – in rural China,
where members of the group share moral obligations and interests, can hold local
officials accountable as well.
At the local level, various accountability measures exist that impact the job
performance of elected officials.
In Uganda, civil society organizations (CSOs) that divulge to the public how well
an incumbent is performing their job duties,
 in a district with an upcoming competitive election, increases the performance of
the politician for the rest of their term.
In contrast to these works, meta-analysis released in 2019 uncover no effects from
CSO voter information campaigns on political
accountability after examining the results from seven trials across six
countries.Additionally,
many local elections are for positions that involve performing jobs with a single
function, such as school board member or sheriff.
These elected officials are held accountable to their positions mainly through the
information provided to the public through the media.

Accountability for unelected leaders

Threat or fear of losing power
Selectorates are those on whom a leader depends in order to hold onto power and
those who have the ability to depose a leader.
When selectorates' hold on power is not overly dependent on the leader in office,
selectorates can remove poorly performing leaders,
and this accountability by selectorates render it possible for autocracies to
perform better for the benefit of all.

Moral standing and social norms.

The solidary groups in rural China can hold local officials accountable when
1) the solidary group encompasses everyone under the local government's
jurisdiction, and
2) local officials are embedded in the group as members; the recognition from
these groups encourages local officials
to carry out their official tasks as they value high moral standing in the group.

Shared interests
Traditional leaders in Zambia provide local public goods despite the fact that
they lack an electoral incentive to provide public goods.
Many customary chiefs never leave the communities they lead permanently and depend
on local sources for a significant portion of their income,
thus, traditional leaders may facilitate bringing local public goods in the
present and benefit from the community's development over time
just like stationary bandits in Olson's argument.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CORRUPTION.

Political corruption refers to "the misuse or the abuse of public office for
private gains", where corrupt practices include fraud,
appropriation of public funds, or accepting bribes are some examples of corrupt
practices.
Corruption can be negative for politicians' evaluations, since citizens' may
perceive corruption as a signal of poor performance,
motivating them to sanction the incumbent.In fact, the model of retrospective
voting that suggests that voters incentivize good politicians'
behavior by rewarding good and punishing bad performance, citizens are expected to
sanction corrupt political.However, recent studies suggest that,
though voters have a general distaste for corruption, they often fail to punish
corrupt incumbents; and that some of them also receive benefits
from their representatives' corrupt practices, and prefer to retain this type of
politicians.Moreover, in high-corrupt contexts,
voters may become more tolerant or even prefer corrupt politicians because others
are also perceived as corrupt,
leading to a corrupt equilibrium "where voters are generally willing to retain
corrupt politicians", which is referred to as a
"political corruption trap".The high corruption equilibrium is difficult to break
due to the interaction between corrupt politicians,
voters who tolerate and retain corrupt politicians, and potential entrants or
challengers who are also apt to engage in corrupt practices,
leading to the maintenance of corruption.
ORGANIZATION ETHICAL.
See also: Social accounting and Environmental accounting
Within an organization, the principles and practices of ethical accountability aim
to improve both the internal standard
of individual and group conduct as well as external factors, such as sustainable
economic and ecologic strategies.
Also, ethical accountability plays a progressively important role in academic
fields, such as laboratory experiments and field research.
Debates around the practice of ethical accountability on the part of researchers
in the social field – whether professional or others –
have been thoroughly explored by Norma R.A. Romm in her work on Accountability in
Social Research, including her book on New Racism:
Revisiting Researcher Accountabilities, reviewed by Carole Truman in the journal
Sociological Research Online.
Here it is suggested that researcher accountability implies that researchers are
cognizant of, and take some responsibility for,
the potential impact of their ways of doing research – and of writing it up – on
the social fields of which the research is part.
That is, accountability is linked to considering carefully, and being open to
challenge in relation to, one's choices
concerning how research agendas are framed and the styles in which write-ups of
research "results" are created.

SECURITY
The traceability of actions performed on a system to a specific system entity
(user, process, device).
For example, the use of unique user identification and authentication supports
accountability;
the use of shared user IDs and passwords destroys accountability.

INDIVIDUALS WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS

Because many different individuals in large organizations contribute in many ways
to the decisions and policies,
it is difficult even in principle to identify who should be accountable for the
results. This is what is known, following Thompson,
as the problem of many hands.It creates a dilemma for accountability. If
individuals are held accountable or responsible,
individuals who could not have prevented the results are either unfairly punished,
or they "take responsibility" in a symbolic
ritual without suffering any consequences. If only organizations are held
accountable, then all individuals in the organization
are equally blameworthy or all are excused. Various solutions have been proposed.
One is to broaden the criteria for individual
responsibility so that individuals are held accountable for not anticipating
failures in the organization. Another solution,
recently proposed by Thompson, is to hold individuals accountable for the design
of the organization, both retrospectively and prospectively.

Accountability is an element of a RACI to indicate who is ultimately answerable

for the correct and thorough
completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those
responsible.

Public/private overlap
With respect to the public/private overlap in the United States, public concern
over the contracting of government services (including military)
and the resulting accountability gap has been highlighted recently following the
shooting incident involving the Blackwater security firm in Iraq.

IN EDUCATION.
Student accountability is traditionally based on hang school and classroom rules,
combined with sanctions for infringement.
As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), accountability
is "A program, often legislated, that attributes
the responsibility for student learning to teachers, school administrators, and/or
students. Test results typically are used to judge
accountability, and often consequences are imposed for shortcomings."
In contrast, some educational establishments such as Sudbury schools believe that
students are personally responsible for their acts,
and that traditional schools do not permit students to choose their course of
action fully; they do not permit students to embark on the course,
once chosen; and they do not permit students to suffer the consequences of the
course, once taken. Freedom of choice, freedom of action,
freedom to bear the results of action are considered the three great freedoms that
constitute personal responsibility.
Sudbury schools claim that "'Ethics' is a course taught by life experience". They
adduce that the essential ingredient for acquiring
values—and for moral action is personal responsibility, that schools will become
involved in the teaching of morals when they become
communities of people who fully respect each other's right to make choices, and
that the only way the schools can become meaningful
purveyors of ethical values is if they provide students and adults with real-life
experiences that are bearers of moral import.
Students are given complete responsibility for their own education and the school
is run by a direct democracy in which students
and staff are equals.

MEDIA AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

Econometric research has found that countries with greater press freedom tend to
have less corruption.
Greater political accountability and lower corruption were more likely where
newspaper consumption was higher in data from roughly
100 countries and from different states in the US.[90] Congressmen who receive
less press coverage are less likely to produce a positive
impact for their constituencies, they are less likely to stand witness before
congressional hearings, and federal spending for the district
is lower. One explanation for the positive impact of media on accountability stems
from Besley and Burgess' work.
They argue that media resolves the information asymmetries between citizens and
government and provides a way of overcoming obstacles
preventing political action. When elected officials and the public gain
information, the public is better equipped to hold politicians
accountable and politicians are more responsive. Ferraz & Finan demonstrate this
in the Brazilian context.
In their work, they find releasing audit reports prior to elections creates a more
informed electorate which holds
incumbent officials accountable.
While large evidence supports the positive impact of press freedom on political
accountability, other work has highlighted
the significance of factors such as media concentration and ownership as
government tools for influencing or controlling news content.
Non-democratic regimes use media for a variety of purposes such as –
(i) to enhance regime resilience, (ii) censor or (iii) strategically distract the
public.
Control of the media may also be especially beneficial to incumbents in new or
developing democracies, who consider media control a spoil of office.[99]
 An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the US and Europe since World War II
noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet:
"The digital revolution has been good for freedom of expression [and] information
[but] has had mixed effects on freedom of the press":
It has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of Internet
journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.
Various systems have been proposed for increasing the funds available for
investigative journalism that allow individual citizens
to direct small amounts of government funds to news outlets or investigative
journalism projects of their choice.

ELECTORAL MANIPULATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

Studies on political accountability have emphasized the key role of elections in
promoting accountability in democratic settings.
It is through elections that citizens hold governments accountable for past
performance.However, the role of elections in fostering
accountability is often undermined by electoral manipulation and fraud. By
preventing citizens from removing leaders through elections
based on their performance in office, electoral manipulation breaks down
accountability and may even undercut the consolidation
of democratic institutions.
Electoral manipulation is not rare: some estimates point out that in the
last two decades up to one fourth of elections suffered
some form of substantial manipulation. This includes a large array of pre-election
and election-day tactics, such as outlawing rival
parties and candidates, employing violence and intimidation, and manipulating
voter registration and vote count.
Some efforts at improving accountability by preventing electoral manipulation and
fraud have obtained a certain measure of success,
such as using cell-phone applications for monitoring and disseminating polling
station results and employing domestic or international
election observers.However, governments sometimes simply shift the type or the
place of manipulation in order to deceive observers
and monitoring agencies.
Governments, politicians and political parties are more likely to resort
to electoral manipulation and fraud when they believe
they might be removed from office and face few institutional constraints to their
power.
Alternatively, low political competition has also been linked to some forms
manipulation, such as abolishing presidential term limits.
Further, well-connected candidates are more likely to resort to vote count fraud.
However,
governments may engage in electoral manipulation not only to obtain victory at a
given election or to remain longer in office,
but also for post-election reasons such as reducing the strength of the opposition
and increasing their own bargaining power
in the subsequent period.

STANDARD.
Accountability standards have been set up, and organizations can voluntarily
commit to them.
Standards apply in particular to the non-profit world and to Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

ACCOUNTABILITY.
The principle of accountability is not practiced in public administration, it
will cause some adverse
effects in that department. Organizations or government agencies are constantly
faced with various
 forms of threats either from within or outside the environment and these threats
can affect the
performance, productivity, and future of an organization. Therefore, The
Malaysian government has
established several government enforcements bodies to inculcate the value of
accountability in civil
servants such as the Management Integrity Committee (JKP), Financial Management
and Accounts
Committee in Federal Government Agencies, Business Facilitation (PEMUDAH),
National Integrity
Plan (PIN), and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). The Project
Monitoring System (SPP
II), Client's Charter and Code of Work Ethics are also expected to help towards
increasing
accountability in civil servants and organizations.
Keywords: Accountability, Public Administration, Integrity
INTRODUCTION
Accountability has been introduced since time immemorial when famous Greek
philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Zeno had first discussed
accountability in the
context of judgment, punishment, and social control. Whereas in modern times,
accountability has been the subject of discussion for many disciplines
including law
(Stenning, 1995), politics (Anderson, 1981), healthcare (Emanuel & Emanuel,
1996) and
psychology as well as behavior. organizational behavior (Schlenker et al, 1994
and
Tetlock, 1992).
Accountability means the nature or sense of responsibility towards a
person or
something for the actions or decisions that have been made and willing to provide
the
necessary explanation or justification. Kearns (1996) defines accountability as a
response
or solution to actions to individuals with the highest authority in the
organization to
provide the best job performance in giving instructions to employees.
Accountability is
important to ensure that the tasks performed achieve the objectives that have been
set and
there is no wastage that can affects public resources. The implementation of work
in an
accountability manner will be able to ensure that the allocation given government
agencies, for the use of the establishment of programs, activities, or projects
will follow
the plan and get the best return for every money spent.
If this principle of accountability is not practiced in public administration, it
will
cause some adverse effects in that department. Organizations or government
agencies are
constantly faced with various forms of threats either from within or outside the
environment and these threats can affect the performance, productivity, and future
of an
organization (Dr Burhanuddin Jalal, 2020). Therefore, The Malaysian government has
established several government enforcements bodies to inculcate the value of
accountability in civil servants such as the Management Integrity Committee (JKP),
Financial Management and Accounts Committee in Federal Government Agencies,
Business Facilitation (PEMUDAH), National Integrity Plan (PIN), and Malaysian
Anti#Corruption Commission (MACC). The Project Monitoring System (SPP II), Client's
 Charter and Code of Work Ethics are also expected to help towards increasing
accountability in civil servants and organizations. To ensure the effectiveness of
the
accountability and integrity movement in strengthening Government services to the
public, several measurement methods have been established such as Corruption
Perception Index (CPI), Financial Management and Accounts Committee (JPKA) report,
Auditor General's report, and Sector Accountability and Integrity Management
System.
Public (SPAI). All these actions will be able to improve the quality of work of
civil
servants and ensure that public money is spent efficiently and orderly, as well as
in
compliance with laws, procedures, and directives in force. Therefore, this
principle of
accountability is one of the very important elements in the public service sector
because
it is a form of protection to civil servants from engaging or engaging in negative
symptoms that are contrary to the ethics of civil servants themselves.
LITERATURE REVIEW.
The concept of public accountability specifically points to the belief that the
public has a “right to know” or the right to obtain reliable information from the
government (Omar et al. 2007; Pablos et al. 2002). It is common knowledge that this
concept of accountability exists when there is one party responsible for reporting
decisions and actions to another party (Omar et al., 2007). Thus, accountability
will exist
if the agent receives resources and responsibilities from the principal (Kluvers &
Tippett
20 I 0, 2011; Pina et al. 20I 0). Figure I explain the accountability relationship
between
the public and the government.
Figure 1: Accountability relationship between the government and the public
The relationship of accountability in the public sector has indirectly regarded the
public as one of the users of information and services offered by the government
(Lily et
al. 2012). Accordingly, the public has the right to know the extent to which these
financial
resources are used and managed by the government (Perez et al. 2005). The public is
interested in obtaining information to enable them to assess the current
performance and
financial position of the government (Pablos et al. 2002). Therefore, the
government
should be more open to disclosing information needed by the public (Steccolini,
2004).
This is because it is a responsibility that needs to be implemented, in addition to
acting
as one of the ways to implement their accountability to the role of government to
the
people.
Accountability has a very broad and interpretable meaning according to the
relevant circumstances and contexts. Traditionally, accountability can be
interpreted as
an inherent relationship between the parties who give and receive an operation
(Roberts
and Scapens, 1985). From an organizational perspective, Shahul (2000) asserts, the
accountability of an organization is not simply the responsibility of using
organizational
resources effective, efficient, and economical (3E) but covers responsibility stay
away
from any misuse of such resources. This means that each perpetrator must provide an
explanation of the action taken to those who have a right to know. The concept of
accountability is also closely related to power where power can be delegated but
responsibility cannot be relinquished. This means that manager must be held
accountable
for the actions taken by subordinate employees.
The concept of accountability is closely related to the value of responsibility
for
an individual. In the context of accountability in general, the value of
responsibility must
exist and must be inculcated in everyone when entrusted to shoulder the
responsibility in
performing any job. A job entrusted must be carried out perfectly and cleanly
without any
elements of fraud, corruption, injustice, treachery and so on. If there are
negative elements
in the execution of a work even if the result of the work is very satisfactory, but
it does
not give any benefit to the individual. In return, the individual will receive a
punishment
commensurate with the bad deeds he has committed.
In the context of the civil service, accountability is the responsibility of the
officer
to provide an explanation of the actions and decisions they take to those who are
entitled
to answers and explanations. The concept of accountability can be defined as
vertical
accountability where civil servants must be accountable to their superiors as well
as the
government. However, nowadays the concept of accountability has also been expanded
in its interpretation where officers also need to be responsible in a network
beyond the
limits while carrying out their duties. Therefore, the concept of accountability in
any
organization in the public service means that officers who work with full
responsibility
and dedication to the task must be shouldered at all times based on good ethical
principles,
values, existing laws, and regulations. This is also agreed by Jones and Pendlebury
(2000), where they say that public property management should be implemented
effectively, efficiently, and economically (3E).

TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
Four main types of accountability are commonly distinguished:
a) Political Accountability
b) Legal Accountability
c) Administrative Accountability
d) Financial Accountability.

a) POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY: This is an extremely important type of

accountability within democracies.
Here,accountability is exercised along the chain of principal-agent
relationships(Strom,2000).
Voters delegate their sovereignity to popular representatives, who in turn,
atleast in parliamentary democracies,
delegates the majority of their authorities to a cabinet or ministers. The
ministers subsequently delegate many of their authorities
to their civil servants to various,more or less independent,administrative
bodies.The mechanism of political accountability operates precisely
in the opposite direction to that of delegation
 b) LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Public officials can be summoned before courts to
account for their actions.The court roles is to protect citizens
against acts of illegality and injustice,providing judicial remedy to citizens
who are adversely affected by administrative actions contrary
to the law.Thus,the court settles conflicts between private individuals and the
state just as they settle conflict between private individuals.

c) ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY: This can be defined as the obligation of power

holder to take responsibilities for their actions,government
administrators are accountable to the citizens or public.They are open to the
public for any decision/action they make.

d) FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: This requires the officials in those institutions to

use available funds judiciously and rendered account periodically
on how the allocated funds is utilized. It is a known factvthat nearly all
public higher institutions are poorly funded, however,how well are has the meagre
fund
made available been expended? This is a major challenge that has made
development extremely difficult in the institutions.

ISSUES OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
1 Corruption.
Corruption is a universal issue, but its severity, complexity, and forms change
from time to time. According to Doorgapersad (2007), corruption is any conduct or
behaviour by those entrusted with public office that violates their
responsibilities as
public officials and is intended to achieve undue gratification for themselves or
others. In
simple word, corruption is the misused of public power or position to gain personal
benefits. Corruption is a violation from the official obligations of a public
position due to
the monetary exercise of specific sorts of private regarding personal, close family
and
private clique influences (Ibietan, J., 2013., Hashim, N., 2017). The examples of
the
behaviour are bribery, nepotism and misappropriation. Bribery is the use of a
monetary
reward to influence the opinion of someone in a position of trust. Nepotism is the
appointment based on a personal relationship rather than merit or performance and
misappropriation is the illegal appropriation of public resources for personal
regarding
uses. Corruption weakens public trust and discourages honest people from joining
the
industry. The corruption will oppose the public accountability of the civil
servants and
politicians that served to the people.
In context of Malaysia, according to Datuk Seri Akhbar Satar, the President of
Malaysia Association of Certified Fraud Examiners said that the Transparency
International has released the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2020.
Figure 2 shows Malaysia CPI (Satar, A., 2021)
The CPI shows that Malaysia has scored 53 points in 2019 which was higher than
47 in 2018 and 2017. The rank of a country reveals how it compares to the other
countries
in the index. The lower a country's ranking, the less corrupt it is supposed to be.
Besides,
the country's score shows the perceived amount of public sector corruption on a
scale of
zero which is extremely corrupt to 100 which is very clean. Hence, the higher the
score,
the higher the position of ranking. It also shows the lesser corruption occurs.
Based on the data, shows that corruption issue is still continuously happen in
Malaysia. Corruption has come to the top of policymakers' and business leaders'
agendas.
Even though corruption has always been a problem, there is a growing understanding
of
its negative effects on social and economic progress. Malaysia has a long history
of
enacting anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation, with instances occurring for
the
previous four decades and no signs of stopping down. Corruption and bribery are
deeply
rooted in Malaysia's political and government institutions, as evidenced by cases
such as
the Sabah Water Department, 1MDB, Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), and Immigration
Department Scandal in 2018. As a result, efforts must be taken to effectively
combat
corruption, with evidence indicating that an increasing number of agencies
attempting to
do so are failing. However, the implementation of newly formulated measures such as
the
introduction of corporate liability for corruption offenses, which will take effect
in June,
might be a game changer in Malaysia's fight against corruption and bribery.
Figure 3 shows that asset misappropriation, bribery and corruption, customer
fraud, and cybercrime were the four most disruptive forms of fraud observed in
Malaysian
organizations in 2020, according to Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). These are
claimed
to account for 70% of all Malaysian economic crimes.
Figure 3 shows four most disruptive forms of fraud in Malaysia in 2020 (Zafar,
2021)
All the data shown above prove that the significant issue of corruption in Malaysia
have impact on the accountability of the government towards the people. The
government
need to reduce the corruption to have citizen’s trust and legitimacy. It is
compulsory for
the government to ensure the public money were spend with integrity and morally
rights.
Corruption affects social, politics and economy due to the distortion of law and
economic growth which depended on the constitutional foundations were weakened. It
also jeopardizes democracy as the distribution of income will be unfair and
bordering the
taxpayers or the people. Due to the scale of corruption and its obvious impact on
the
social, political, and economic environment of Malaysia, combating corruption and
promoting integrity has become a top priority. Corruption in Malaysia is projected
to cost
up to RM10 billion a year, or $2.3 billion in US dollars.
NON-TRANSPARENCY.
2 Transparency is the openness of the government in spending public accounts
(Aziz, M. A. et al., 2015). Some academics argue that transparency is a by-product
of
accountability, and that both are necessary foundations for democratic governance
and
growth. Transparency is viewed as an important aspect in corporate governance, or
governance for a publicly listed firm or publicly accountable company. It act as a
monitoring mechanism by the capital supplier, called shareholders, and the agent,
in this
case is the company's managers. Non-transparency is the hidden information of
public
account which lead to ambiguous spending and possible corruption. The standstill in
the
country's institutional reforms, the release or discharge of high-profile court
cases, and
limited access to information on public interest matters, have all influenced the
country's
corruption inclination according to Transparency International Malaysia president
Dr
Muhammad Mohan (Shah, S. A., 2021). Good governance should not limit the access of
information which will lead to authoritarian and decrease the democratic values.
The
issue of accountability in failure to disclose the information can be seen in the
political
funding process (Shah, S. A., 2021). The government has failed to table and pass
the
Political Funding Bill until 2021. Consequently, money politics is still
uncontrollable
during elections as there are no Act to control it.
In the heat of the current economic crisis, the general people and civil society
are
calling for greater openness in government. There are much expertise uphold the
issue of
transparency which are accountable for the government to ensure the political fund
and
public money did not being abused for political purposes. Next, the allocation of
Budget
2021 for Communications and Multimedia Ministry consumed RM80.5 million (Tan et
al., 2020). The issue here is the purpose of the spending are argued by many
scholars and
even in the Parliament. The purpose of the spending did not clearly justify and
prove
worth as it is only used for political purposes (Tan et al., 2020). This shows that
government try to hide money spending on ambiguous purposes which will breach their
public accountability. The other issue is the vaccination data system that worth
until
RM70 million (Shankar, 2021). The website seems to be not worth to RM70 million as
many reports from the citizens claimed that the website is poor and did not stable.
Figure 4 shows the views on non-transparency leading to corruption (Satar, A.,
2015).
People have begun to question several issues, including the usage of a free
"Cloudflare" service after the website failed to fulfil the standard several times
and failed
to allow the public to register for immunizations. The background developer of the
website needs to be revealed as it has shown poor work in public sector. According
to Dr
Khor Swee (2020), there are chance to improperly hide data and bad news rather than
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

WAYS OF ADDRESSING ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY (INDICATOR).

To address this issue, the researcher decided to explained detail about indicator
used to identify issue faced by governance in accountability practises, where there
a lot
of instruments are used to define and detect several issues in public services
happens in
country. According to Oxford English Dictionary, indicator can define as a sign or
symptom of something we can to measure it. In this context, indicator is used in
governance to measure something about the state of governance in a
country like problems. Governance indicators are usually narrowed down to measure
more particular areas of authority such as democratic systems, corruption, public
service
delivery, and gender equality.
INDICATOR OF CORRUPTION
One of issue faced regarding accountability in public sector is corruption.
According to Asia-Pacific Development Journal (2000), corruption is defined as
public
sector, which is personally or in group used public sector to gain their own
private matter,
which is they used rank, status, or official position to gain personal benefits.
Corruption
is no longer new matter happened in country, and it happens in a lot of country
especially
developing country.
Another indicator used to measure or identify corruption is The Corruption
Perceptions Index (CPI). At 1995, CPI had been launched by the Transparency
International (TI). CPI was launched to provide corruption data, with transparency
as
large perceptions and to educate and increase the understanding of people regarding
the
level of corruption on every country.
In order to get this data, Malaysia had been used 9 out of 13 secondary sources
to
calculate their CPI. One of sources that Malaysia had used is Bertelsmann
Foundation
Transformation Index. In this index, the experts are asked a question what factors
that
public officeholder are prohibited from breach their position for private interests
and does
the government successfully take legal action, penalize, and prevent corruption due
to
that factor.
By implementing these sources and method, Malaysia can detect and identifying
corruption in early stage and can take legal action. According to Datuk Seri Akhbar
Satar,
President of Malaysia Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the data sources
used to
collect the index number and to determine the CP is used all type of data in public
sector
such as such as bribery, diversion of public funds, State capture, the government's
ability
to enforce integrity mechanisms and red tape and excessive bureaucratic burden.
However, public services in Malaysia must implement good practices in
accountability
use resources appropriately and efficiently which is using this method in good
manners
to measuring corruption index with the aim of decreasing the number of corruptions.

INDICATOR OF NON TRANSPARENCY.

Non-transparency is another issue happened that interrupt public services practise
accountability. According to UK Dictionary, no-transparency is a not able to be
seen
through or opaque. Transparency is a symptom of good governance in a democratic
government. Establishment of exact data, clear, and relevant information is highly
required for achieving an open government and gaining public trust. According to
Lindstedt & Naurin, (2010), transparency is crucial effort to fight and against
corruption
and improving government accountability. Transparency is endless value that must be
practises by public servant to become more transparency implementation policy,
freedom
of communication and fulfilled needs of community. However, when the nation lacks
accountability, it can affect the government to be unreliable and lost trust of
community.
According to Siti Ngatikoh, Annual Conference of Indonesian Association for Public
Administration (IAPA 2019), to developed and implement accountability in
government,
government need several method and models to address this issue.

CAUSES OF UNACCOUNTABILITY.
The cause of unaccountability was low morale. The spirit of your workers is
referred
to as morale. It is based on a set of emotions, such as gratitude, and can be high
or low
(Sheahan, 2018). Employee morale that is negative or low can be problematic for
companies. It not only creates an uncomfortable workplace, but it may also lead to
more
turnover and lower productivity. Employees' desire to accomplish duties, as well as
their
behaviour, cheerfulness, and discipline, are all influenced by their morale. Low
morale
has a negative effect on these areas, and it can spread throughout your employees.
Low
morale leads to a drop in output and performance. When your employees are
dissatisfied
with their work, they are less likely to give it their all, resulting in poor
quality work or
late assignments. Employee appreciation is one of the most effective ways to
motivate
high levels of productivity and quality. Provide timely praise, low-cost rewards,
and, if
feasible, spot bonuses for your employees' successes. When stress and workloads are
high
and you're working in an unpredictable environment, it's easy to forget to convey
special
thanks to your staff. But be assured, such acknowledgement may go a long way toward
improving workplace morale.
Besides, unclear priorities. According to the Cambridge Dictionary (2021),
priorities may be described as anything that is highly essential and must be dealt
with
before other things. Prioritizing work can be difficult, especially if you have a
hands-off
boss or a firm that does not provide you with clear objectives. Every day, most of
us are
confronted with this fact. According to Robert Kaplan and David Norton's widely
referenced research, more than 90% of employees do not completely understand their
business's strategy or know what is required of them to assist the company
accomplish its
objectives (Su, 2017). Misunderstandings regarding priorities frequently lead to
you
doing the wrong job, at the wrong time, for the wrong purpose, and maybe striving
for
the incorrect quality level. It's also possible that you're working for the
incorrect boss. For
the whole organization, leaders must establish three to four relevant, measurable,
and
memorable Key Results. Every employee in your company should be completely familiar
with them, so that all objectives and efforts are framed around them. Avoiding a
lack of
responsibility and being clear only works if everyone is always aware of what
they're
working on (Partners in Leadership, 2020).
Next, ineffective execution. The rate of strategy execution success is quite low.
According to a 2015 research paper by Candido and Santos in the Journal of
Management
& Organization, failure percentages in scientific investigations range from as low
as 7%
to as high as 90%, with an average of around 50%. (Kraaijenbrink, 2019). Even if
there
has been a slight improvement over time, such failure rates are not particularly
satisfying.
After all, it implies that every second strategic initiative is not properly
implemented. The
lack of a clear and defined direction is the cause of ineffective execution. At the
beginning
of each month, the team should meet to discuss the month's projects and priorities.
Explain the significance of the priorities, each stakeholder's involvement in them,
and
how each is contributing to the strategy's implementation. Clarity requires early
and
frequent communication. Furthermore, there is a lack of communication among
stakeholders. We call an organization's silo mentality when stakeholders
consistently fail
to communicate across departments. Leaders should search for methods to encourage
cross-departmental communication and collaboration on common initiatives. Two
effective approaches to fight the silo mentality are to hold frequent cross-
departmental
meetings or to establish a common system of records for project management and
strategy
implementation that incorporates collaborative capabilities.
Lastly, low levels of trust. Transparency and communication suffer because of a
lack
of trust. Reduced transparency and communication results in a lack of creativity as
well
as agility and response to changing conditions. Employees who lack confidence in
leadership frequently avoid speaking with them for fear of punishment or simply
because
they do not even trust leadership to be open with them. Employees must report any
possible difficulties or concerns to leadership in a timely and open manner to
achieve
optimal employee performance. This is difficult without confidence. Relationship
problems might have a negative influence on profitability (TOLERO solutions, 2020).
The virus that can cause an unhealthy workplace culture is a lack of trust in the
workplace.
It usually starts with the boss and extends throughout the team, resulting in a
cycle of
unhealthy reactions that affect employee engagement and productivity (Smith, 2019).

Recommendations to Overcome Accountability Issues in Public Administration.

The concepts of integrity, transparency and accountability have been identified
by the United Nation (UN) countries, collectively and individually, as part of the
founding
principles of public administration (UN Charter, 2005). As such, these principles
need to
be embraced and seen to be practiced by the leadership within the UN System and in
all
member countries. Not only that, but the concepts should also be applicable and
practiced
in every country. The public administration has responsibility and obligatory
functions to
ensure the accountability are preserved and governed effective and efficiently.
Improving
the accountability in theatrically is easier than practically applied it in real
situation.
Despite many solutions provided by the government, the issues still continuously
growing. There are several suggestions that are applicable to the government.
Firstly, the government need to reflect on effectiveness. Every institution needs
to be inspected their performance. Malaysia’s Performance Management and Delivery
Unit (PEMANDU) need to be enrolled in this case. PEMANDU can provide better
solutions for the public body to become effective and efficient (World Bank Group,
2017). Existing institutions tend to be self-satisfied about their role, whereas
supporters
of the importance of integrity and anti-corruption sometimes seem to favour “the
more,
the better,” which can seriously undermine the credibility of integrity
initiatives. Hence,
more reflection and research on what works is essential, in terms of not only
agencies but
also instruments and systems. Such study should address possible positive and
negative
side effects, as Anechiarico and Jacobs (1996) did so convincingly for
effectiveness.
According to Management of Complaints Compliance (MACC), 2016, every four months
the Chief Integrity Officer is required to submit a report to the General Secretary
to ensure
the effectiveness of the implementation of integrity unit. Plus, 887 integrity
units existed
in Malaysia. This show lack of effectiveness in public body and needed to be
improved.
Hence, the public administration should become more alert and sensitive in checking
and
maintaining the accountability by optimizing the integrity units.
Next, the public administration needs to be transparent. European states with the
best control of corruption are those countries which score highest for
transparency. Public
Procurement and government expenditure need to be exposed. The government should
enhance the roles Ministry of Communication and Multimedia as mediator to provide
information in every action such as infographics and promotes to the social media.
E#procurement also need to be improved as the criteria in selecting is still vague.
According
to Lee, Oh & Kwon (2008), the procurement needs to be innovated to improve
transparency. For example, the policy in selecting criteria of the tender project
that will
be selected need to be exposed and clear. This is to avoid cronyism and despotism
occurs
in giving public projects. When surveillance instruments have multiplied
exponentially
in the age of sophisticated IT and big data, the best way to preserve trust and
integrity is
to remove opportunities for corruption and to enact policies designed to avoid any
situations in which infringements might arise and require sanction. A country such
as
Italy, for example has widespread corruption even the most advanced control in the
world
can no longer repair and completely restore good governance. Surveillance by
government agencies might indeed be crucial, but the use of it is no proper way to
gain
trust that is a job for surveillance by the citizens themselves. New technology
should be
recruited to allow complete transparency in fiscal matters and the monitoring of
governments by their own citizens. In this modern world, the citizen is exposed to
the
information on the internet about the public spending and activity. Hence, the
administrator needs to show their work to gain the public trust.
Lastly, the coordination in the execution of the public servants need to be
improved. If there has been a breach of integrity, administrator cannot simply
continue to
deny it (Blok, 2016). The code of conduct needs to be upheld and coordinates by
every
person. The body of administrator are expected to act when suspected something is
wrong, firstly by making it a subject for discussion and confronting others about
their
improper behaviour. In more serious situations, if confrontation does not help, the
misconduct should be reported. These need integration of work among every level of
people, not only person who reported but also administrator who strive to uphold
justice.
All in all, public accountability is obliged for the public executor to fulfil.
This
influences their legitimacy and public trust. Without accountability, the
administrator
tends to breach the code of ethics and conduct causing corruption. It may lead
unstable
government and reduce the public trust.

CONCLUSION.
True accountability is the full control of everything that happens in your life.
This means
you understand that you are responsible for your behaviour, acts, responses,
teamwork,
communication, and relationships. It also means that you keep others responsible
for the
actions and efforts they make. Employee accountability is the duty of workers to
carry
out the tasks assigned to them, to perform the duties needed by their jobs, and
to be
available for their proper shifts in order to accomplish or further the goals of
the company.
 Being accountable is being responsible for your acts and decisions, while
fulfilling the
expectations of your job. Accountability has implications. Failure to meet
standards can
result in punishment. Moreover, success will be rewarded.

REFRENCES.
Abdullahi, M.(2013) Ethics and Accountability in Nigerian Public Service
Agara and Olarinmoye (2009)Ethics and accountability in Nigeria Public Service.
Hondeghem, A. (1998).Ethics and Accountability in a context of Governance.
Rashed, S.(1995)."Ethics and Accountability in the African Civil Service".
Scott, C.(2000) "Accountability in the regulatory state,journal of law and
society.
Thompson, D.F.(1985).The possibility of Administrative Ethics, in public
administrative.
ASPA(2021).American Society of Public Administrative.
DR. Burhanuddin Jalal.(2020). Ethics and Accountability.
Hasim, N.,(2017). Ethics and Accountability.
Okafor (2018). Ethics and Accountability in Public Administrative.
Bratton, M and Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2016). Ethics and Accountability.
Aziz, M. A.,Rahman, H. A.,Alam,M.M.,& Said, J. (2015).Accountability.
Cambridge Dictionary (2021). Ethics and Accountability.
Kraaijenbrink, J.(2019,September 10)Ethics and Accountability.