欧洲公共部门问责制风格比较荷兰、挪威、瑞士和英国机构的问责制和控制

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Thomas Schillemans, S. Overman, M. Flinders, Per Laegreid, M. Maggetti, Y. Papadopoulos, Matthew Wood
{"title":"欧洲公共部门问责制风格比较荷兰、挪威、瑞士和英国机构的问责制和控制","authors":"Thomas Schillemans, S. Overman, M. Flinders, Per Laegreid, M. Maggetti, Y. Papadopoulos, Matthew Wood","doi":"10.1177/09520767221098292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms’ length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as ‘centralized and convenient’. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively ‘broad and informal’. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations.","PeriodicalId":47076,"journal":{"name":"Public Policy and Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public sector accountability styles in Europe comparing accountability and control of agencies in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Schillemans, S. Overman, M. Flinders, Per Laegreid, M. Maggetti, Y. Papadopoulos, Matthew Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09520767221098292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms’ length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as ‘centralized and convenient’. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively ‘broad and informal’. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221098292\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Policy and Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221098292","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文发展并应用问责风格的概念来分析和比较不同国家的问责实践。这是相关的,因为有很多关于公共部门问责制的学术研究,但只有很少的比较研究。现有的研究表明,国家问责风格既具有趋同性,又具有国家差异的弹性。采用问责风格的概念来描述和解释问责做法在行政系统之间的差异。它通过分析荷兰、挪威、瑞士和英国这四个国家传统不同的欧洲民主国家的公共部门机构问责制实践来实现这一目标。这些国家在国家实力(干预主义倾向)和行政集中度(高度或低集中化)方面各不相同。该分析侧重于独立机构的问责制,这有助于各国之间的比较。本文表明,国家政治行政背景对机构问责制和问责制度的实践起着至关重要的作用。挪威问责制的特点是“集中和方便”。英国式的管理同样集中,但不那么方便,因为它给机构带来了高昂的问责制流程成本。瑞士的特点是有限的等级责任。荷兰的问责制风格相对“宽泛而非正式”。国家实力和行政集中度解释了一些差异,而历史遗产解释了其他国家差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public sector accountability styles in Europe comparing accountability and control of agencies in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK
This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms’ length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as ‘centralized and convenient’. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively ‘broad and informal’. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Policy and Administration
Public Policy and Administration PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Policy and Administration is the journal of the UK Joint University Council (JUC) Public Administration Committee (PAC). The journal aims to publish original peer-reviewed material within the broad field of public policy and administration. This includes recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative theory, administrative history, and administrative politics. The journal seeks to foster a pluralistic approach to the study of public policy and administration. International in readership, Public Policy and Administration welcomes submissions for anywhere in the world, from both academic and practitioner communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信