Confronta i metodi

	Transaction Cost Analysis in the Public Sector	Accountability Mechanism Analysis
Campo	Public Administration	Public Administration
Famiglia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Anno di origine	1981	2007
Ideatore	Oliver E. Williamson	Mark Bovens
Tipo	Institutional-economics analysis	Conceptual accountability assessment framework
Fonte seminale	Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.	Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
Alias	Public Transaction Cost Economics, Make-or-Buy Analysis in Government, Transaction Cost Governance Analysis	Accountability Assessment Framework, Bovens Accountability Analysis, Public Accountability Mechanism Analysis
Correlati	4	4
Sintesi	Transaction cost analysis in the public sector applies the economics of organisation to decisions about how government should structure the provision of goods and services — in house, by contract, or through hybrid arrangements. Oliver Williamson's 1981 article The Economics of Organization set out the transaction-cost approach, arguing that the choice of governance structure should economise on the costs of negotiating, monitoring and enforcing exchanges, not just on production costs. The method identifies the relevant transaction, assesses its attributes such as asset specificity and uncertainty, enumerates the governance alternatives, and aligns the structure to the transaction so that total cost is minimised. Its purpose is to explain and guide make-or-buy and contracting decisions in public administration.	Accountability mechanism analysis provides a structured way to identify, describe and evaluate the relationships through which public actors must explain and justify their conduct to others. Mark Bovens, in his 2007 conceptual framework, defines accountability narrowly as a relationship in which an actor has an obligation to render an account of conduct to a forum that can pose questions, pass judgement, and impose consequences. The method first maps these relationships, then classifies them by the type of forum and obligation, and finally assesses them against political, constitutional and learning perspectives. Its purpose is to bring analytical precision to a concept that is otherwise used as a vague synonym for good governance.