240 9: Th eories of Governance
of nongovernmental organizations that bear on the interests of citizens in the
same way as governmental agencies. (Frederickson 2005, 301)Th e regime theory of governance is an attempt to place distinct boundaries
around the concept of governance. Moving beyond the work of Lynn et al., it pro-
vides an organizing theme and direction for public administration and governance
scholars. Th e regime theory of governance further identifi es specifi c institutional
defi nitions, characteristics, and relationships between actors that should allow for
theory development. Nonetheless, two key democratic elements are absent from
such a theory: accountability and legitimacy.
Accountability and Global Governance
Th e basic concept of democratic accountability becomes muddied when exam-
ining hybrid or interjurisdictional organizations. Th e problem therein lies with
identifying the appropriate stakeholder. For government, this role rests with cit-
izens. For public-private partnerships (PPPs) or governance networks, the type
and number of stakeholders become more numerous and less obvious. For some
government agencies, the advantage of partnering with a private organization is
in fact “reduced public accountability” (Skelcher 2005, 361). For governance the-
ory to move forward, however, requires an examination and development of an
accountability framework appropriate for twenty-fi rst-century governance.
Chris Skelcher writes that the new face of governance, particularly PPPs, will
require public managers to answer a new set of questions:
- Does the rhetoric of common interest between the parties occlude im-
portant diff erences of value and motivation? - With what do the partners trust each other?
- To what extent do governments have the capacity to engage in PPPs?
- How do PPPs articulate with democratic institutions and processes?
(2005, 363–364)
Questions 2 and 4 deal directly with issues pertaining to accountability and
governance. Governance theory, based on public-private partnerships, hybrid or-
ganizations, or interjurisdictional organizations, clearly faces an accountability
dilemma. How do you hold public and private actors accountable? Can they be
held accountable in the same fashion? Should accountability be considered jointly
or separately for partnerships?
Th e fundamental goal of any governance network should be to provide for
the quality delivery of some public service or good. Christopher J. Koliba, Rus-
sell M. Mills, and Assim Zia (2011, 212) present an accountability framework
for governance networks that extends across three diff erent frames (Democratic,
Market, and Administrative) and eight diff erent accountability types. Within the