Accountability, democracy and participation in tumultuous societies: making it count

Submit your paper here

Introduction

Participation is increasingly seen as a vital part of delivering public services in democratic societies. On the one hand, this is because democracies require (or, perhaps, should require) participation as part of their political fabric, and as a means of facilitating accountability, transparency and legitimacy (features all seen as ‘good’ aspects of democratic processes). On the other hand, services are often best delivered to individuals through participatory means. From an external perspective, therefore, citizens can shape, as well as be shaped, by government actions, both instrumentally, as their participation increases their desire to comply with instructions, and because only through participation can government action be legitimated (Ferry et al., 2021; 2024a). In the provision of public services, the possibilities of voice (from a variety of stakeholders) have become increasingly recognised as a tool to legitimate service delivery, and also as a means through which this can be improved. This raises the question of the extent to which participatory mechanisms are desirable because they are democratic, and the extent to which they are appropriate because they have the potential to facilitate the provision of better services.

Democratic societies rest upon the notion that citizens shape their governments, and hence shape public services. In early democracies, citizen participation in government was immediate and intimate (Mitchell, 2015). As representative government evolved, arguments that suggested citizen participation was crucial to its legitimacy continued to be heard (Skinner, 1998). Participation can be seen in democratic theory as the ‘right of rights’ which exists beyond and over all other rights (Waldron, 1998). Democratic government in the modern world is inherently bureaucratic because of its ambition, and it is also political because of the subjects it examines (Peters, 2010; Etzioni-Halevy, 2013; Peters et al., 2022). Inclusive democratic participation in debate, contestation of ideas and decision making are frequently viewed as indispensable to ensuring decisions are legitimate and enable the underpinning of a free and cohesive society (Brown, 2009; Ferry et al., 2024a; McDonald et al., 2024). Such notions of participation are very old, with accounting historians tracing their development back, for example, to the Italian renaissance (Manetti et al., 2024). Nevertheless, scholars have frequently raised questions about whether structures developed to enhance participation, such as citizen fora and participatory budgeting, really do ‘deliver’, and have frequently deliberated on the determinants of ‘success’ in the pursuit of such a goal (Barbera et al., 2016; Kuruppu et al., 2016). Relatedly, there have been long debates about what forms of accounting are required to facilitate this (Cordery and Simpkins, 2016; Ferry et al., 2024ba; Dos Santos and Lopez, 2025). The Covid-19 experience represented a key case in which participation based on usable information and numbers was seen as an important means to gain government action legitimation, although the provision of  adequate ‘usable information’ was frequently weak (Ferry et al., 2024b; Dos Santos and Lopez, 2025).

Recent geo-political reconfigurations and the return of less-participatory and more government-centred decision marking, such as those that seem to be emerging more strongly in, for example, the U.S., further highlight this paradox and questions whether participation is a necessary element of democracies at all. Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that some scholars have begun to note how non-democratic polities form different accountability systems. This is particularly the case in recent comparative studies (Ferry et al., 2023). For example, Mir et al. (2017) found that audit institutions in non-democratic countries function very differently to those in democracies. Rhetorics of accounting and accountability, moreover, have been utilised to legitimate the dereliction of rights in some 20th century country-settings (Twyford and Funnell, 2023). This raises further questions: what does participation mean in the systems of a totalitarian or non-democratic state, and what is the role of accountability in such contexts (Evans, 2006)? Are non-democratic states even possible without mass participation in government by those who live within them (Mailänder, 2016)? Even in democratic contexts, these questions become relevant due to the vulnerability of participation through mediating institutions and populist moments that may be used by citizens to challenge the role of elite experts (including accountants, academics or economists) (Heald and Hodges, 2024). An example of this could be seen in the UK’s Brexit referendum, where expert ‘accountability’ proved incapable of mobilising a population (Clarke and Newman, 2017). Participation, therefore, may even entrench divides, rather providing a mechanism of unity (Feezell, 2016).

Issues around participation, of course, are relevant also from an internal, organisational processes point of view. During the introduction of new accounting practices, for instance, the existence of organisational members’ participation and voice has been found to affect the final result of change, as well as people’s acceptance of the new structures (Chattopadhyaty et al., 1999; Hyndman and Liguori, 2019). In periods of crisis or upheaval, accountability and accounting numbers have been shown to have considerable power as they can be captured, monitored and used to develop and reinforce policy and steer collective behaviour (Ahn and Wickremasinghe, 2021; Polzer and Goncharenko, 2022; Tregidga and Laine, 2022;). Accounting and performance measurement are increasingly found to support government internal monitoring processes and decision making (Mitchell et al., 2021; Hyndman and Liguori, 2024). Both organisational and citizen participation, moreover, is considered paramount during the co-design and co-delivery of public services and is closely related to how inclusive those services are (Loeffler and Bovaird, 2017; Licsandru et al., 2025). Different governance systems may, therefore, favour (and, at times, construct) different forms of participation. With reference to the delivery of public services, specifically, these are often provided in collaboration with nonprofit organisations, where both donor and beneficiary/citizen involvement become vital (Hyndman, 2020; Hyndman et al., 2021). Considerations of both organisational and democratic participation can therefore take new meanings and shapes in different contexts, making this area of enquiry particularly in need of further investigation.

List of Topic Areas

The Special Issue welcomes contributions on all aspects connected to accountability and participation in the context of the provision of public services (either by the public sector or via nonprofit organisations). Different and innovative methodological approaches are encouraged, as are international comparative studies. Examples of possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Whether and how participation makes a difference in the discharge of different forms of accountability
• The extent to which participation makes citizens responsible/accountable for the choices of the state in which they participate
• Links between accountability, transparency and participation to the meaning of democracy and its associated concepts
• The extent to which accountability, transparency and participation are particularly relevant concepts only in democratic regimes, and whether, and how, they can be part of the system of a non-democratic or totalitarian state
• How accountability, transparency and participation support each other during public-service provision
• The role of (accounting) professions in influencing government accountability and transparency
• The historical role that accounting has played in enhancing the politics of external and organisational participation
• Formal versus less formal protocols of accountability and participation
• The engagement with, and understanding by, citizens (and politicians and other potential users) with regard to public-service accountability systems
• Accountability, accounts and counter accounts in the provision of public services
• Participation (and saliency) of stakeholder groups in the construction of performance-measurement frameworks
• The use of performance-measurement frameworks in facilitating participation
• The impact of neoliberalism on the participatory processes and opportunities to express ‘voice’
• Different forms and plausibility of citizen involvement (e.g., co-production) in public-service provision and accountability processes
• The role of, and accountability to, volunteers in participatory processes
• New forms and experiences of participative budgeting
• Experiences of different organisational budgeting systems, and views from controllers and line managers
• Organisational participation and voice processes
• The role of nonprofit organisations, and their internal and external accountability, in the delivery of public services.

The Special Issue aligns with Emerald and AAAJ research value statements. Emerald Publishing is committed to the realization of a research and publishing environment built upon transparency, accessibility, and integrity. For more information, visit: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/aaaj-05-2025-296/full/html.

AAAJ continues to publish leading-edge research concerning the interaction between accounting, auditing, accountability and their socio-economic, institutional and political environments. Through innovation in research design and issue analysis, we encourage critical investigation of policy and practice alternatives and the impact of accounting on the full spectrum of organisations, communities and society. AAAJ's mission is to expand our understanding of and creative solutions to important accounting, auditing, and accountability issues globally. That mission remains committed to including critical and historical perspectives on contemporary issues and problems, addressing political influences on policy-making, examining social and political aspects of accounting, auditing and accountability, and embracing the full spectrum of the societal constituency we are committed to supporting.

Submissions Information

Submissions are made using ScholarOne Manuscripts. Author guidelines must be strictly followed.

Submit via ScholarOne

Author Guidelines

Authors should select (from the drop-down menu) the special issue title at the appropriate step in the submission process, i.e. in response to “Please select the issue you are submitting to”. 

Submitted articles must not have been previously published, nor should they be under consideration for publication anywhere else, while under review for this journal.

Key Dates

Submissions open: ScholarOne submission for the Special Issue will open on 1st March 2026.

Full paper submission deadline: 31st July 2026.

Final acceptance date: 30th December 2026.

Publication of the Special Issue is expected in 2027 and papers will be available for early cite when accepted.

Contact

If you would like to discuss the special issue and your potential contribution, please get in touch with Professor Mariannunziata Liguori at [email protected].

Guest Editors

Professor Laurence Ferry (Durham University)

Professor Noel Hyndman (Durham University and Queen’s University Belfast)

Professor Mariannunziata Liguori (Durham University)

Dr. Henry Midgley (Durham University)