The meaning of accountability

Here's a classic article on the meaning of 'accountability' as it applies to a range of players in world politics.

Grant and Keohane argue that forms of accountability of an institution can be split between

1. Participation: performance is evaluated by people affected by use of power by the institution
2. Delegation: performance is evaluated by people entrusting the institution with power

The authors identify three components of accountability: standards, sanctions and information. It is difficult to pinpoint the use of any of these components when it comes to international development NGOs. Neither the poor nor donors effectively hold them to account.

Institutional mechanisms are particularly weak in terms of information:

Crucial to the efficacy of an information system for controlling abuses of power is that control over it not be limited to power-wielders and the entities that originally authorized their actions. On the contrary, the system should be open to new groups, seeking to provide information relevant to the question of whether power-wielders are meeting appropriate standards of behavior—–and to make that information widely available...Furthermore, the costs of providing information through web sites are now so low that it is difficult to use cost or inconvenience as an excuse; people around the world are increasingly used to being able to get the information that they want almost instantaneously...NGOs must also be increasingly transparent if they are to remain credible.

Urking Oxfam (1)

The impetus for this blog came from an unexpected and unsettling experience with Oxfam. In July 2007 I emailed them for a list of all the projects which they had funded in the tax year 2006-07 - so that I could see where in the world the money goes and what it goes towards.

But I was disappointed. The Supporter Relations department told me:

"If you have been unable to find the exact breakdown of our budgets and expenditure, then I'm afraid this information is not available to the public."

Looking harder I found that in their Annual Report for the 2005-06 tax year, Oxfam provide this pie chart...

...which indicates how £196.5 million was distributed between the five Oxfam aims - but it gives no more detail who is receiving the money or what they are doing with it.

The report states that over £40 million of the expenditure is made through grants (1,782 of them apparently) to other NGOs or other Oxfams. A quick analysis of the top 50 recipients reveals a pattern of expenditure as follows:

Oxfam region	Grants in £thousands
East Asia	249
Southern Africa	510
Central America, Mexico and Caribbean	791
South America	880
West Africa	1,436
Middle East, Eastern europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States	1,535
Global	1,876
South Asia	2,538
Horn, East and Central Africa	3,708
Grand Total	13,523

It is interesting to see how money is distributed around the world. But no meaningful conclusions can be drawn because these grants only represent a fraction of the total grants made in the year (about 12%) and most of Oxfam's money is not distributed through grants anyway.

In total, £176 million of Oxfam's income for the year came from voluntary sources (ordinary donations, legacies, public appeals, DEC appeals, the DfID PPA and other gifts). That's money that comes from you and me. In addition DfID and other public agencies (e.g. UN, European Union etc.) gave £48 million. That's also money that comes from you and me.

But as to what this money is actually spent on, we are left in the dark. There are no other details on:

• Which organisations received grants from Oxfam
• Where Oxfam's money was spent
• On what activities Oxfam's money was spent

Why can't Oxfam be open and transparent about where our money goes?