A peripheral subject in the debates on the UN until recently, accountability is now one of the key terms in the debates on the performance of the UN and the UN Secretariat in particular. UN critics from US Congress castigate the UN (meaning the Secretariat) for its lack of accountability. Discussions of accountability feature prominently in all key documents from the Volcker Commission’s reports to Kofi Annan’s In Larger Freedom.

In the eyes of many, accountability is crucial for the effectiveness of the institution and its performance: "Where there is accountability we will progress; where there is none we will underperform," as Kofi Annan has put it. Second, it is a crucial determinant of legitimacy of the institution in eyes of its immediate principals (the member states) and the broader public.

The political challenge is clear: In order to preserve both its standing as an effective tool and institution plus preserve its standing as a global governance institution in a broader framework, the UN Secretariat and its member states need to evaluate and "re-engineer" its accountability system.

Project objectives

So far, there are no comprehensive studies of the UN Secretariat’s accountability system and its performance. Building on GPPi’s previous work on accountability in global governance, this project seeks to fill this gap. The goal of the project is threefold:

On a conceptual level, combining insights and approaches from political theory, international relations, sociology, organizational theory, public administration and law, the project seeks to develop a framework for analyzing the accountability of a modern, complex global bureaucracy.
Empirically, the project seeks to track the evolution of the UN’s accountability system and its performance in certain key areas (using the examples of peacekeeping operations; the oil-for-food program and the post-tsunami relief efforts).
On a policy level, the project seeks to develop recommendations for re-designing the UN Secretariat’s accountability system.

Research questions

First, how can we best conceptualize the accountability system of the UN and the UN Secretariat?

Second, how has the system evolved historically?

Third, using a number of key cases what does the "accountability performance" of the UN Secretariat look like? Where do we see failures of accountability? Where can the accountability system presently in place demonstrate successes?

Fourth, how can we explain these respective accountability "failures" and "successes"?

conceptually: realism (power politics determines accountability outcomes); rational institutionalism/principal-agent approaches; historical institutionalism; constructivist/bureaucratic culture approaches
operationally: failure of the accountability holder (negligent oversight); failure of the accountability holdee (obfuscation) or the (outdated/inappropriate) mechanisms of accountability

Fifth, what conclusions do we draw for re-designing a system of accountability for the UN? How can we create an accountability system that is effective and legitimate without succumbing to the dangers of "multiple accountability disorder". What conclusions do we draw for the question when and how change in accountability systems takes place (institutional learning; crisis-driven; personal leadership)?

Approach/methodology

Multi-disciplinary conceptual approach (political theory; international relations; sociology/ organizational theory; public administration/management; law); In-depth case studies