<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.cf390c6bfbe7555f.css">

On Accountability and Hierarchy

dc.contributor.authorBendor, Jonathan
dc.contributor.authorSwistak, Piotr
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-01T19:02:11Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractDemocracy promises accountability via elections; bureaucracy promises coordination via hierarchy. Many scholars believe these properties conflict. We prove, however, that accountability is precisely what unifies democracy and meritocratic (Weberian) bureaucracy. Central to the concept of meritocracy are performance reviews. We prove that a review system where all individuals and groups are accountable must also be democratic. Thus, meritocratic hierarchy, accountability, and democracy are intertwined. But accountability in modern political systems confronts a significant issue. Such systems include many knowledge-intensive specialties, and since specializations are limited to some but not all members of an institution, the full accountability of democracies entails review of specialists by amateurs. We prove that modern political systems necessarily exhibit this tension. It is a hallmark of modern institutions rather than a problem to be solved.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055424000315
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.13016/akbr-5hdr
dc.identifier.citationBENDOR, J., & SWISTAK, P. (2024). On Accountability and Hierarchy. American Political Science Review, 119(1), 368-383. doi:10.1017/S0003055424000315
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/35659
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAmerican Political Science Review
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectaccountability
dc.subjectpolitical systems
dc.titleOn Accountability and Hierarchy
dc.typearticle
local.equitableAccessSubmissionYes

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Bendor_accountability-political-systems_2024.pdf
Size:
834.8 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format