Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy

TLDR

The 1986 Challenger disaster, which killed seven crew members, highlighted the need for robust accountability mechanisms in U.S. public administration, where concepts of bureaucratic, legal, professional, and political accountability are used to manage institutional expectations. The chapter proposes an alternative explanation focusing on institutional factors that contributed to the Challenger disaster.

Abstract

This chapter offers an alternative explanation which addresses institutional factors contributing to the shuttle accident. On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded in mid-flight and seven crew members lost their lives. The chapter provides types of accountability systems: Bureaucratic accountability systems, legal accountability, professional accountability and political accountability. In the American political system, all four accountability types offer potentially legitimate means for managing institutional level expectations. Accountability is a fundamental but underdeveloped concept in American public administration. Scholars and practitioners freely use the term to refer to answerability for one's actions or behavior. Legal Accountability is similar to the bureaucratic form in that it involves the frequent application of control to a wide range of public administration activities. The professional accountability system was evident in the three centers under the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF): the Marshall Space Flight Center, the Manned Spacecraft Center, and Kennedy Space Center.