China's Public Welfare Social Organizations Provide Public Service Accountability Logic

As far as public service provision is concerned, public interest-oriented social organization is so an important entity that it is regarded as indispensable partner of governments. In China, public interest-oriented social organization provides contracted public service besides supplemented public service. However, a large number of facts proved that it was not holy. Hence, We must face an intractable problem that how to impel it to fulfill duty as public service provider in order to make beneficiaries really profitable. Accountability is just a useful key which solves the problem.According to stakeholder theory, there are multiple stakeholders of public interest-oriented social organization. The key stakeholders are also diverse such as governments (regulator and planner), the third party organizer, donators, beneficiaries, front staff and volunteers, which are all accountability subjects of public interest-oriented social organization. Governments, the third party organizer and donators, which are on top of provision chain of public service, either exercise public power or control resources. They are all called upward accountability subjects. As public service acceptors, beneficiaries are on bottom of provision chain of public service, while front staff and volunteers are at grass-roots level of public interest-oriented social organization. Accordingly, We may see them as downward accountability subjects.Upward accountability subjects always pay close attention to the processes of public service provision and immediate outputs, and focus on funds. However, downward accountability subjects are apt to concern themselves with the outcomes and influence of public service. Because upward accountability subjects are advantaged and can order public interest-oriented social organization around, their accountability demands always are satisfied actively. But some demands of downward accountability subjects often are laid aside and ignored, and downward accountability subjects even are lack of opportunities and channels in order to ask accountability. At the present time, a style of accountability which is process-oriented and funds-focused is beginning to take shape, and accountability loses sight of influence of public service provision, especially long-time influence. Accountability myopia becomes very serious.With respect to accountability tools, some widely used set of tools for facilitating accountability at present include information disclosure, site survey, selective finance examination, evaluation of the third party organizer, evaluation of the independent third party, question and complaint. Among these tools, information disclosure, site survey, selective finance examination, evaluation of the third party organizer may be called upward accountability tools, which are mainly used by upward accountability subjects; evaluation of the independent third party is a typical kind of lateral accountability tool that is seen as a more fair and objective method; question and complaint belongs to downward accountability tool utilized by beneficiaries, front staff and volunteers. What is more, upward accountability tools are developed in order to closely monitor the whole processes of public service provision and funds. It further verifies that upward accountability subjects pay excessive attention to the processes and funds. In fact, these accountability tools not only can not satisfy demand of accountability practice as a whole, but also are out of balance in the structure. That is to say, upward accountability tools are optional in the toolbox; on the contrary, downward accountability subjects are lack of accountability tools.The research finds that accountability logic of public service provision of public interest-oriented social organization at present is that the status decides accountability priority. In other words, whether or not accountability subjects can be given priority when public interest-oriented social organization responds multiple accountability demands, it is decided by the status of the former relative to the latter. Relatively speaking, upward accountability subjects have an advantage and are responded by public interest-oriented social organization because of public power or control of resources, while downward accountability subjects are at a distinct disadvantage because of lack of power or resources. So present accountability situation is dominated by upward accountability subjects, not downward accountability subjects. The accountability logic not only affects achievement of purpose of public service provision, but also makes the mission of organization be on paper.However, making beneficiaries really profitable is the purpose of public service provision, and accountability is just a tool which compel public interest-oriented social organization to fulfill its duty in order to make beneficiaries really profitable. Therefore, natural accountability logic ought to be that purpose decides accountability priority. On the one hand, the key stakeholders of public interest-oriented social organization, especially upward accountability subjects, should primarily put forward demands which help achieve the purpose of public service provision. On the other hand, public interest-oriented social organization should meet these accountability demands. It is obvious that present accountability logic is significantly different from natural one.It is necessary to rebuild present accountability logic in order to really achieve the purpose of public service provision. The route is from present accountability logic to natural one. The first, We must prioritize accountability to beneficiaries. The following are possible measures: establishing formal and informal accountability mechanism to beneficiaries; set up open channels of communication between beneficiaries and upward accountability subjects; let beneficiaries participate in upward accountability processes to relieve the symptoms of accountability myopia; as multiple accountability demands tend to be conflicting and contradictory, public interest-oriented social organization may take some measures to ensure accountability priority right of beneficiaries.The second, We ought to intensify accountability to front staff and volunteers. It is indispensable to create an atmosphere of accountability from bottom to up inside the organization, and empower front staff and volunteers through participatory management and expansion of behavioral freedom, in order to change organizational accountability consciousness from finance to public service provision.The last, accountability should be development-oriented.(1)Adjusting the style of accountability from processes to outcomes, and transferring accountability focus from funds to the purpose of public service provision.(2) Paying attention to short-term outcomes, and more higher appreciating long-term influence on beneficiaries. Not only extending the time span of accountability, but also designing a set of suitable index system which can be utilized to evaluate the long-term influence. Especially, upward accountability subjects have to rethink that how to use accountability tools which are mainly aimed at outputs and immediate influence of public service.(3) public interest-oriented social organization must be accountable to itself and know if it always persists in its own stated goals and mission, and if it enables beneficiaries to ’do’alone.