It first analyzes competing interpretations and models of accountability, followed by a review of the British experience in the past 30 years, contrasting changes in formal structures with substantive developments in practice. The conclusions reflect on the significance of this for achieving an acceptable accountability structure for policing. There are two fundamental issues in the achievement of democratic accountability that the account of the British experience and debate suggests. One issue is the way that a merely explanatory model of accountability to particular institutions stands to be subverted by complex webs of political and ideological conflict. A second problem in achieving accountability is the frequently discussed practical autonomy of street-level policing, i.e., the low visibility and high discretion of rank-and-file officers. Recent British proposals represent an explicit centralization of police accountability and an enhanced capacity for police authorities to influence policing practice through the market process. It remains to be seen whether the forces of the market will achieve what traditional systems of public accountability could not. Even if they do, what is involved is the pursuit of a narrow form of managerial accountability to ensure efficiency in the achievement of goals determined by central government. The key antinomy of the 1980's was the proliferation of critical demands for "subordinate and obedient" accountability of police to elected local authorities, coupled with the practical achievement of tighter accountability to central government. Behind an apparent concern for community consultation, the real locus of decision-making is more distant from the democratic process than ever before.