Abstracts
Résumé
L’évaluation de l’imputabilité dans la gouvernance collaborative pour déceler d’éventuels déficits est l’une des questions les moins abordées dans la littérature. Dans la présente étude visant à mettre au jour l’état de l’imputabilité collaborative dans la fonction publique (FP) québécoise, une analyse de contenu des rapports du Vérificateur général du Québec (VGQ) à l’Assemblée nationale pour les années 1988 à 2022 a été effectuée à l’aide du modèle de Lee et Ospina (2022, p. 70). Trois résultats majeurs en sont ressortis. Le premier met en évidence une culture de gouvernance de la FP québécoise caractérisée par un faible recours aux récompenses et sanctions, et par un processus d’imputabilité très déficient en matière d’évaluation des performances et de communication et partage d’information. Le deuxième résultat révèle que, sous l’effet de la Loi sur l’administration publique (LAP) adoptée en 2000, la FP québécoise a présenté davantage de lacunes en matière de communication et de partage d’information aussi bien à l’interne qu’à l’endroit du Parlement, mais s’est montrée plus soucieuse de la performance. Le troisième résultat de notre analyse montre que la principale cause du manque de comptes rendus au Parlement réside dans la défaillance du système de rétroaction. Ces résultats ont été discutés en détail et les limites de l’étude, relevées.
Mots-clés :
- Gouvernance collaborative,
- déficit,
- évaluation d’imputabilité
Abstract
Assessing accountability in collaborative governance to identify potential deficits is one of the least discussed issues in the literature. In this study, which aims to bring to light the state of collaborative accountability in the Quebec public service (PS), a content analysis of the reports of the Auditor General of Quebec to the National Assembly from 1988 to 2022 was carried out, using the model of Lee and Ospina (2022, p. 70). Three major results were obtained. The first highlights a governance culture of the Quebec PS characterized by a low use of rewards and sanctions with an accountability process that is much lacking in terms of performance evaluation and communication and sharing of information. The second shows that the Quebec PS, under the effect of the Public Administration Act adopted in 2000, presented more lack of communication and information sharing both internally and with Parliament, but was more performance oriented. The third result from this analysis indicates that the lack of reporting to Parliament is much more related to the failure of the feedback system. These results were discussed and the limitations of the study, noted.
Keywords:
- collaborative governance,
- deficits,
- accountability assessment
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Bakkour, D. (2013). Un essai de définition du concept de gouvernance. Études et Synthèses, 5.
- Bazinet, A. (2017). L’encadrement de la coopération inter organisationnelle et de la coordination dans l’administration publique québécoise (1976-2003) : composants, évolution et analyse comparative avec sept pays de l’OCDE. Montréal, QC : École nationale d’administration publique.
- Blais, M., Martineau, S. (2006). L’analyse inductive générale : description d’une démarche visant à donner un sens à des données brutes. Recherches Qualitatives, 26(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.7202/1085369ar
- Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2014). The Oxford handbook public accountability, Oxford University Press (p. 182–208).
- Brandsma, G. J., & Schillemans, T. (2013). The Accountability Cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-Part, 23 (4), 953–975, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus034.
- Clarke, A., & Dubois, E. (2020). Digital era open government and democratic governance: The case of Government of Canada Wikipedia editing. Canadian Public Administration, 63(2), 177–205.
- Costumato, L. (2021). Collaboration among public organizations: a systematic literature review on determinants of interinstitutional performance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34 (3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2020-0069
- Côté, L., Mazouz, B. (2005). Les effets de la Loi sur l’administration publique sur la qualité des services et sur la gestion dans les ministères et les organismes.
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design : Choosing among five approaches. London : Sage Publications. ISBN978-1-5063-3020-4. Chapitre 8 : Data Analysis and Representation (p. 181-223).
- Dawson, M., & Maricut-Akbik, A. (2021). Procedural vs substantive accountability in EMU governance: between payoffs and trade-offs. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(11), 1707–1726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1797145
- Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60 (6), 549–559.
- Dhahi Sellami, N. (2012). Convergence entre les institutions de gouvernance publique et privée : rôle des Systèmes Nationaux de Gouvernance : cas des pays du Maghreb : Tunisie–Algérie–Maroc (Doctoral dissertation, Bordeaux 4).
- Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing collaborative governance decision-making in search of a ‘collaborative advantage.’ Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019
- Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289252
- Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes (Ser. Public management and change series), Georgetown University Press., Ed.
- Gohier, C. (2004). De la démarcation entre critères d’ordre scientifique et d’ordre éthique en recherche interprétative. Recherches Qualitatives, 24, 3–17.
- Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization, from Papers on the Science of Administration. In Classics of Organization Theory.
- Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for all seasons? 3–19.
- Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.
- Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
- Kamuzinzi, M., & Rubyutsa, J. M. (2019). When tradition feeds on modern accountability mechanisms in public policy implementation. The case of “Imihigo” in Rwanda. Public Performance and Management Review, 42(3), 632–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1494018
- Lacroix, I., St-Arnaud, P. -O. (2012). La gouvernance : tenter une définition : Vol. IV.
- Lee, S., & Ospina, S. M. (2022). A framework for assessing accountability in collaborative governance: A process-based approach. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab031
- Luchi, L. N. (2015). La Loi sur l’administration publique et les indicateurs de performance dans la reddition de comptes des organismes : étude comparative de six organismes du gouvernement du Québec (2000-2012). Mémoire. École nationale d’administration publique, 53 p.
- Mayne, Q., de Jong, J., & Fernandez-Monge, F. (2020). State capabilities for problem-oriented governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz023
- Mitchell, G. E., O’leary, R., & Gerard, C. (2015). Public performance & management review collaboration and performance: Perspectives from public managers and NGO leaders. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4), 684–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031015
- Mucchielli, A. (1996). Dictionnaire des méthodes qualitatives en sciences humaines et sociales (Armand Colin, Ed.).
- O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012445780
- Overman, S., & Schillemans, T. (2022). Toward a public administration theory of felt accountability. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13417
- Overman, S., Schillemans, T., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). A validated measurement for felt relational accountability in the public sector: gauging the account holder’s legitimacy and expertise. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1748–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254
- Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2018). Coping with value conflicts in interorganizational collaborations. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(4), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx019
- Palumbo, R., & Manesh, M. F. (2021). Travelling along the public service co-production road: a bibliometric analysis and interpretive review. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2015222
- Parrado, S., Reynaers, A.-M. (2021). Partenariats public-privé : l’imputabilité procédurale plutôt que celle axée sur les résultats. Revue Internationale Des Sciences Administratives, Vol. 87(4), 827–845. https://doi.org/10.3917/risa.874.0827
- Pesqueux, Y. (2007). Corporate Governance, Gouvernance organisationnelle, Global Governance et démocratie délibérative. Dans : Y. Pesqueux, Gouvernance et privatisation (pp. 171-242). Paris cedex 14 : Presses Universitaires de France.
- Pollitt, C. , & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: a comparative analysis: into the age of austerity, Oxford University Press, 4th ed..
- Priliandani, N. M. I., Irianto, G., & Prihatiningtias, Y. W. (2023). Work culture in the implementation of the regional government performance accountability system. S8, 458–466. www.migrationletters.com
- Reddick, C. G., Demir, T., & Perlman, B. (2020). Horizontal, Vertical, and Hybrid: An empirical look at the forms of accountability. Administration and Society, 52(9), 1410–1438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720912553
- Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
- Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2015). Predicting public sector accountability: From agency drift to forum drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu024
- Sedgwick, D. (2017). Building collaboration: Examining the relationship between collaborative processes and activities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw057
- Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2009). Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum036
- van Popering-Verkerk, J., Molenveld, A., Duijn, M., van Leeuwen, C., & van Buuren, A. (2022). A framework for governance capacity: A broad perspective on steering efforts in society. Administration and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211069932
- Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2013). Building and Using the Theory of Collaborative Advantage. Network Theory in the Public Sector: Building New Theoretical Frameworks, R. Agranoff, New York: Taylor and Francis (p. 51–67).
- Wang, L., Müller, R., & Zhu, F. (2023). Network governance for interorganizational temporary organizations: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728221125924
- Willems, T., & van Dooren, W. (2012). Coming to terms with accountability: Combining multiple forums and functions. Public Management Review, 14(7), 1011–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662446
10.7202/1085369ar