@ARTICLE{26583242_34810844_2011, 
	author = {Marina Larionova}, 
	keywords = {, international development assistance, accountability, G8, academic institutions, NGOs, G20compliance},
	title = {Mapping G8/G20 Accountability},
	journal = {INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS RESEARCH JOURNAL},
	year = {2011},
	volume = {6},
	number = {3},
	pages = {4-9},
	url = {https://iorj.hse.ru/en/2011-6-3/34810844.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The paper presents a review of a flow of "accountability" reports made public in the G8/G20 processsince 2008, the total number of which reached 67 for both institutions. The review looked into how thesereports addressed the four accountability aspects of transparency, consultation, evaluation and correction.Several features of the reports were singled out as proxies for the respective qualities. Provision ofthe evidence base and data presented for each of the members rather than in an aggregated format enhancetransparency. Recommendations provided by the reports’ author promote consultation. Scoringsor ratings give clear signals of the evaluation results. Each report was assessed against the set of thesethree functions with one score for transparency, one score for evaluation, and one score for consultation.As the correction is the prerogative of the affecting actors, reports were not assessed on this merit.The author concludes that the answer to the four questions of 1) how transparently G8 and G20pursue the delivery of the global public good within their mission; 2) how consultative the institutions’policy processes in respect of providing that global public good are; 3) how well their performance isevaluated in regard to furthering that global public good; 4) how well they correct their shortcomings inpromoting the particular global public good is: "not enough". Emphasizing that it is not the quantity butthe quality of the accountability mechanisms which should be addressed, the paper concludes with a setof recommendations aimed at helping to build a pluralistic accountability system.},
	annote = {The paper presents a review of a flow of "accountability" reports made public in the G8/G20 processsince 2008, the total number of which reached 67 for both institutions. The review looked into how thesereports addressed the four accountability aspects of transparency, consultation, evaluation and correction.Several features of the reports were singled out as proxies for the respective qualities. Provision ofthe evidence base and data presented for each of the members rather than in an aggregated format enhancetransparency. Recommendations provided by the reports’ author promote consultation. Scoringsor ratings give clear signals of the evaluation results. Each report was assessed against the set of thesethree functions with one score for transparency, one score for evaluation, and one score for consultation.As the correction is the prerogative of the affecting actors, reports were not assessed on this merit.The author concludes that the answer to the four questions of 1) how transparently G8 and G20pursue the delivery of the global public good within their mission; 2) how consultative the institutions’policy processes in respect of providing that global public good are; 3) how well their performance isevaluated in regard to furthering that global public good; 4) how well they correct their shortcomings inpromoting the particular global public good is: "not enough". Emphasizing that it is not the quantity butthe quality of the accountability mechanisms which should be addressed, the paper concludes with a setof recommendations aimed at helping to build a pluralistic accountability system.}
}