Accountability for refugee resettlement in New Zealand

Public governance in many countries has been moving toward a model called New Public Governance (NPG) to deal with the increasing complexity in the provision of public services. NPG adopts a new perspective that emphasises the importance of managing the interaction between and among organisations within and outside the government to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of public policy and service delivery. The interdependent relationships of these cross-working organisations are reflected in their accountability processes. Thus, a robust accountability system is central to managing public governance. However, accountability is complicated, and its definition is regularly debated. Accountability is even more intricate in network relationships where it is challenging to identify who has contributed in what way. However, research on accountability in networks is limited.

To contribute to the understanding of the problems of accountability in public governance, this study examines the nature of accountability and evaluates the discharge of accountability in the provision of public services in practice, using a case study of refugee resettlement in New Zealand. The following research question is addressed, “What is the nature of the accountability relationships between different parties involved in, or affected by, the provision of social services to former refugees in New Zealand?”. In answering this question, the study developed a research framework that was built on insights from prior literature and stakeholder theories and employed a case study approach that analysed 32 semi-structured interviews and a range of documents related to refugee resettlement in New Zealand.

The study finds that the current accountability system has not reflected the broader conception of multiple and interrelated accountability relationships identified in the literature on NPG. Upward accountability to powerful stakeholders is mostly prioritised, downward accountability to beneficiaries has not significantly improved, and horizontal accountability to cross-working partners is limited. The tensions between a bureaucratic need for control and a more devolved governance model that allows for the recognition of multiple contributions to both policy formation and implementation are still strong. Moving from the New Public Management (NPM) perspective involving control over public money, still codified in the Public Finance Act 1989, to something closer to NPG is evidently not easy.

iiThe key academic contribution of this study is in adding an important piece to the nearly “empty land” of horizontal accountability research, providing an understanding of how accountability mechanisms are used in practice, and raising the voices of less powerful stakeholders about the discharge of accountability by social service providers. Regarding its practical contributions, the study provides a typical case study for research on accountability of non-government organisations (NGOs) in an NPG context, which can be valuable for policymakers wishing to develop policies that lead to an improvement in the appropriate expectations in NPG and accountability relationships between different parties in the delivery of social services. It also provides recommendations for the government, NGOs, and refugee communities for achieving greater accountability.