Analysis of sufficient conditions for accountability mechanisms

Table 3.4 presents the analyses of sufficient conditions for the outcomes 'high use of individual upward, organizational upward, and downward accountability mechanisms'. Only truth table rows with a minimum consistency level of 0.85 were included in the minimization process.

Sufficient conditions for high use of individual upward accountability mechanisms

Analysing the sufficient conditions for the outcome 'high use of individual upward accountability mechanisms', we observe three different paths that lead to a high solution coverage and solution consistency in Table 3.4:

Analysis of sufficient conditions1'2

Outcome: High use of... mechanisms

Conditions

... individual upward accountability...

... organizational upward accountability...

... downward accountability...

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

Solution

1

2

3

1

2

1a

1b

2a

2b

High formal independence

О

О

High personnel management autonomy

О

О

High financial management autonomy

о

о

о

о

о

о

Large organization

О

о

о

Raw coverage

0.73

0.44

0.20

0.14

0.27

0.61

0.28

0.26

0.28

Unique coverage

0.25

0.01

0.07

0.02

0.14

0.20

0.02

0.02

0.02

Consistency

0.80

0.94

0.93

0.90

0.94

0.94

1.00

1.00

1.00

Countries3

8 x FL

3 x FL

6 x NL

1 x FL

2 x PO

10 x PO

7 x PO

1 x NL

1 x PO

3 x PO

6 x NL

3 x NL

6 x NL

1 x NL

1 x NL

8 x NL

solution coverage: 0.82 solution consistency: 0.81

solution coverage: 0.28 solution consistency: 0.95

solution coverage: 0.65 solution consistency: 0.95

  • 1 Black circles point out the presence of a condition, and white circles point out its absence. Large circles indicate core conditions; small ones, peripheral conditions. Blank spaces indicate 'don't cares' (Ragin and Fiss 2008).
  • 2 Table includes only the intermediate solution configurations that lead consistently (0.85) to the outcome of interest. The table does not include the absence of the outcome.
  • 3 FL = Flanders, PO = Portugal, NL = the Netherlands.
  • 1. The absence of high personnel management autonomy AND the absence of high financial management autonomy.
  • 2. The absence of high formal independence AND the absence of high financial management autonomy AND the presence of being a large organization.
  • 3. The presence of high formal independence AND the presence of high personnel management autonomy AND the absence of being a large organization.

These three configurations are empirically relevant (consistency) and cover quite some cases. The first path, covering 19 of our cases, and the second path, referring to 11 cases, are in line with the formulated hypothesis H1. However the third path clearly does not match the formulated hypothesis H1: In organizations that do not have a large size, but do have high formal independence and high personnel management autonomy, 'the use of individual upward accountability mechanisms' also seem to be rather widespread (6 organizations). Moreover, in the robustness tests including all conditions that we performed, this latter path appeared to be empirically relevant, besides two paths referring to the absence of high personnel management autonomy combined with the presence of high formal independence, or vice versa. The robustness tests with the models excluding financial management autonomy confirm this. So, H1 holds only for a part of the solution paths. Not only are individual upward accountability mechanisms used to a high level in cases where agencies have low formal independence and/or low managerial autonomy and/or when they are large, they are also highly used in small agencies with high formal independence and high de facto managerial autonomy.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >