This study was an attempt to see the accountability effect of the ACC's public hearings. Citizens who participated in the public hearings of the ACC formed the core group of respondents of this study. Fifty-four percent of the individual problems and 23% of the public problems were resolved after complaining in the public hearings.
The interviewees, regardless of the resolution of their problems, stated that the public hearings were effective. The relative power positions of the various actors of the accountability relationship had unreasonably influenced the outcome of the public hearings.
INTRODUCTION
Background
The five-year strategic plan for the ACC highlighted the importance of public hearings to ensure corruption-free delivery of public services (CD 2014). Cole & Caputo (1984), who studied public hearings in the American context as a mechanism for citizen participation, found that although the mechanism is aimed at changing government behavior so that governmental entities are responsive to citizens' needs and refrain from arbitrary use of power, it had little effect on the pattern of such behavior. Although studies reveal a minor contribution of public hearings as a method of citizen participation, "a main goal (of citizen participation) has been to create a more accountable, more responsive and more democratic government at all levels, especially in administrative and bureaucratic activities" (Cole & Caputo 1984, p.414).
Cole & Caputo's (1984) study concluded that participation in public hearings can have positive consequences for the participating citizens - a better and more informed citizenry. From this perspective, the current study focused on the accountability dimension of public hearings in the Bangladeshi context.
Objective
Thus, social accountability tools can help reduce the information asymmetry between policy makers or supervisors and public officials, so that policy makers can detect the deviance of public officials and thereby hold them accountable.
Rationale
Scope and Limitations
Organization of the Report
The research carefully considered the geographical coverage of the country in the selection of public hearing sites. The first specific objective was to explore the nature of complaints made at public hearings. The second objective was to describe the effects of public hearings on meeting complainants' expectations of public hearings.
The first section describes the expectations of the public hearing participants (complainants) in three subsections. The second section describes the effects of the public hearing on the fulfillment of complainants' expectations. The third section analyzes the bureaucratic accountability effect of the public hearing in two subsections.
Most of the complaints made at public hearings related to land-related services. In this case, the effect of the public hearing will be to mitigate the appeal. Interviewees usually described the public hearing as a "good initiative" by the government.
The respondents found that in most cases the appeals offices easily accepted the decisions of the public hearing. The respondent in interview 9 made two public interest complaints at the public hearing. Only a third of respondents whose expectations were not met believe that the public hearing was not effective.
People living in the vast hinterland of a field-level administrative headquarters remained uninformed about the public hearings. Participation in the public hearings was limited by people who lived near the locations of the events. The ACC asked the local administration of the public consultation centers to deal with most of the reported complaints.
The public hearing helped to increase the level of confidence of those requesting assistance in a number of critical aspects.
LITERATURE REVIEW
METHODOLOGY
- Introduction
- Approach
- PUPULATION and Sample Size
- Data Collection
- Data Processing and Analysis
These subsections juxtapose bureaucratic accountability with the social power structure and feelings of empowerment of participants in the public hearing. The complainant was a journalist and he brought to the attention of the public hearing the corrupt behavior of the postmaster. In interview 36, the respondent said that the public hearing changed the behavior of officials in a positive direction only for a while.
The respondent of Interview 16 also believed that the public hearing instilled a sense of fear in the minds of the public officials. The public hearing documents from the ACC revealed that the hearing directed a review of the application of the complaint.
FINDINGS
NATURE OF COMPLAINTS
- Diversity in Complaints
- Land-Related Complaints
- Health-Related Complaints
- Education-Related Complaints
- Electricity-Related Complaints
- Social Security-Related Complaints
- Complaints against Law Enforcement Administration
- Postal Service-Related Complaints
- Banking Service-Related Complaints
- ACC Local Committee-Related Complaints
- Public Interests
- Individual Interests
Therefore, solutions to these problems would serve the interests of the state and the common people. Therefore, solutions to these problems would serve the individual interests of the people who raised them in the forum. It implies that citizens' expectations of the public hearings include interventions in the affairs of the offices and individuals.
These offices refused to respond to letters from the ACC Integrated District despite repeated requests. This interviewee explained that senior colleagues (civil servants) of non-participating offices are in decision-making positions in the ACC. There were several other land-related complaints against the Upazila Sub-Registrar's office (Interview 1, Interview 9).
These complaints ranged from the misbehavior of health authorities to the negligence of doctors in their duties. Some of the respondents complained about the services of the rural electrification office (Interview 4, Interview 7, Interview 12, Interview 27 and Interview 35). The respondent in interview 28 said that in the public hearing he complained about the negligence of the Chairman of an Upazila Level Prevention of Corruption Committee.
Some people have attended public hearings on issues affecting the interests of the state and the common people. This activity showed a low price of land for transfer and a lower amount of land tax to the state. In contrast, the actual payment of the land by the buyer to the seller remained high.
The doctor had to push an injection into the child's jaw before removing the tooth. She raised the doctor's behavior at a public hearing, where she sought a change in the doctor's behavior towards a child patient.
EFFECTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
- Outreach of Public Hearings
- Bureaucratic Behavioural Change
- Solution to Problems
- Addressing Grievance
- Unfulfilled Expectations
- Complainants‘ Confidence
- Non-Pursuance of Remedies
- Hazards of Complaining
- Perceived Effectiveness
- Limitations of Public Hearings
Most of the complainants reported that their problems were resolved after complaints at public hearings. About a third of the respondents stated that their expectations from public hearings were not met. This same respondent referred to being honored with a public hearing: “I was honored by the public hearing.
I was one hundred percent sure that participating in the public hearing would be meaningless. It is found that the complainants who raised public problems in the public hearing sessions did not pursue solutions to the problems. Another respondent in Interview 22 faced a different kind of danger after complaining at the public hearing.
An unknown fear haunted some complainants for some time after complaining to the public hearing. He added: "A lot of people expressed their problems in the public hearing in addition to me. He said: "I did not think that I would get such (positive) results from the public hearing.
Even some of the respondents whose expectations were not met believed that the public consultation was effective in their eyes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUREAUCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
- Power Structure
- Accountability Opportunity
Some other citizens who participated in the public hearings did not agree to be interviewed. The public hearing overturned the Land Registry's decision and returned the property to its true owner. Such actions by the public hearings strengthened citizens' confidence in the public hearing's ability to provide bureaucratic accountability.
The public hearing's intention and ability to hold the bureaucrats accountable wavered in a few cases of complaining (Interview 10, Interview 20 and Interview 35). In Interview 20, the public hearing asked the local police and general administration to address the problem of the respondent not being observed. In the case of Interview 35, the public hearing asked the local administration to supervise an electricity connection to the complainant's house.
In the absence of an effective accountability framework, citizens saw the public hearing as an opportunity to hold corrupt bureaucrats accountable. The beleaguered requesters found the public hearing an oasis in the desert of irresponsible service providers. The public hearing gave the patients a sigh of relief from the anxiety they endured with them.
Nevertheless, the peace that I have received from the public hearing is that I found a platform to lodge my complaint. Another respondent told of being reprimanded by local guardians for complaining to the public hearing without consulting them (interview 7). Another dimension of the public hearing was that it had shattered the faith in the invincibility and unaccountability of the corrupt officials.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The study of Alam et al. 2017) also identified this limitation of the ACC's public hearings. In the absence of a functional hierarchical accountability mechanism, the respondents of this study described the public hearing as a panacea for various ills of the field-level bureaucracy. The job seekers of the field level bureaucracy are so harassed that even expression of.
The mere disclosure of the complaints to the public was considered effective because this activity mobilized shame for the corrupt public officials. Although the liability was short-lived, it was effective even if it failed to resolve some of the grievances reported in the public hearings. The service providers could express their grievances in the face of the service providers fearlessly.
The accountability power of the public hearing was formed in the relational positions of power held by the various actors of the accountability relationships. The positive change in the behavior of the field-level bureaucrats faded as they noticed that the responsibility was incidental. Some complainants faced social and bureaucratic risks after complaining to the public hearings that were outside the protection of the ACC.
The relative positions of power of various actors in the relationship of responsibility had an unreasonable influence on the outcome of public hearings. First, the publicity of the public hearing required wider coverage so that all residents of the administrative unit would know about what was happening. Cole, RL and Caputo, DA 1984, Public deliberation as an effective mechanism for citizen participation: a case study of a general revenue-sharing mechanism.
