Incommensurability and accountability interpretivism

Inevitably, at the conclusion of a volume such as this, the question arises as to whether the experiences recounted, the narratives told, the conclusions enumerated, and the meanings derived, contribute to the development of an integrated framework. Such a framework would purport to allow us to ground broad generalizations of either practical use or theoretical value. The chapters included here stand together, however, in opposition to the construction of a neat package of conclusive findings and definitive lessons. Our very emphasis on global accountabilities broadcasts our antipathy towards modernist presumptions that project meta-narratives onto local histories, cultural traditions, and participatory or institutional practices. Suggesting, for example, that accountability involves “transparency,” “answerability,” “compliance,” and “enforcement” in “account-giving,” is appropriate in certain circumstances. But to assume from this that common understandings exist – either with respect to the applied meanings of this lexicon or with regard to the values served by their application across a range of diverse political communities – runs the risk of fixating the viewer's understanding of accountability before one has examined who “performs” accountability and how, where, why, under what conditions, and with what effects.

Such an analytical stance, grounded in a priori assumptions that tend to reduce cultural significations to axiomatic and homogenized generalizations, has afflicted the study of global accountability in comparative contexts.