เปรียบเทียบวิธี

	Comparative Public Administration	Accountability Mechanism Analysis
สาขาวิชา	Public Administration	Public Administration
ตระกูล	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
ปีกำเนิด	1964	2007
ผู้ริเริ่ม	Fred W. Riggs	Mark Bovens
ประเภท	Cross-system comparative analysis	Conceptual accountability assessment framework
แหล่งต้นตำรับ	Riggs, F. W. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN: 9780395067352	Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
ชื่อเรียกอื่น	Comparative Administrative Analysis, Cross-National Public Administration Study, Comparative Bureaucracy Analysis	Accountability Assessment Framework, Bovens Accountability Analysis, Public Accountability Mechanism Analysis
ที่เกี่ยวข้อง	4	4
สรุป	Comparative public administration is the systematic study of administrative systems across countries, regions or historical periods in order to explain similarities and differences in how states organise and run their bureaucracies. Fred Riggs, a pioneer of the field, argued in his 1964 Theory of Prismatic Society that administration cannot be understood apart from its ecological context — the social, economic, political and cultural environment in which it is embedded. The method compares administrative structures, behaviours and performance while situating each case in its setting, guarding against the assumption that arrangements which work in one country will transfer to another. Its purpose is to build generalisable knowledge about administration that is sensitive to context rather than ethnocentric.	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.