Positioning Accountability in European Governance: An Introduction

Eur Law J, 2007

It has been argued that the EU suffers from serious accountability deficits. But how can we establish the existence of accountability deficits? This article tries to get to grips with the appealing but elusive concept of accountability by asking three types of questions. First a conceptual one: what exactly is meant by accountability? In this article the concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences. The second question is analytical: what types of accountability are involved? A series of dimensions of accountability are discerned that can be used to describe the various accountability relations and arrangements that can be found in the different domains of European governance. The third question is evaluative: how should we assess these accountability arrangements? The article provides three evaluative perspectives: a democratic, a constitutional and a learning perspective. Each of these perspectives may produce different types of accountability deficits.

European Law Journal, 2007

It has been argued that the EU suffers from serious accountability deficits. But how can we establish the existence of accountability deficits? This article tries to get to grips with the appealing but elusive concept of accountability by asking three types of questions. First a conceptual one: what exactly is meant by accountability? In this article the concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences. The second question is analytical: what types of accountability are involved? A series of dimensions of accountability are discerned that can be used to describe the various accountability relations and arrangements that can be found in the different domains of European governance. The third question is evaluative: how should we assess these accountability arrangements? The article provides three evaluative perspectives: a democratic, a constitutional and a learning perspective. Each of these perspectives may produce different types of accountability deficits.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

2004

The ‘PubAcc’ (Public Accountability in Contemporary European Contexts) project was carried in 2001–2004 by a research team from the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The aim was (1) to analyse public accountability in relation to three different policy-making areas (GM crops, household waste, transport infrastructure projects) in the seven national settings, as well as at European level; and (2) to discuss the significance of public accountability for contemporary democratic governance and legitimacy. Using an expanded conceptual framework – that goes beyond the traditional conceptualisation in terms of formal provisions for openness and scrutiny within state institutions, and relates public accountability to policy- and decision-making processes, the dynamics of social mobilisation, and wider public sphere discourse – seven national profiles were drawn up and 21 empirical case studies were carried out. The research findings point to the following characteristics of public accountability in contemporary European contexts that have policy implications: first, there are substantial differences in the normative conceptualisation and practical experience of public accountability in the seven countries analysed. This needs to be borne in mind when considering public accountability at European level and in relation to new forms of multi-level governance. Second, the differences in the conceptualisation and use of public accountability can be explained with the different historical, political and cultural traditions in the countries analysed. Thus, an in-depth understanding of the political process, policy-making and public sphere activities is essential, in order to be able to gain a more thorough understanding of the role of public accountability in democratic governance and legitimacy. Third, there is a significant difference between the provision of formal structures and procedures of public accountability through state systems, on the one hand, and the ‘practice’ and ‘lived’ experience of public accountability in policy-making and public sphere discourse, on the other. This difference can be interpreted as a (perceived) dysfunction of formal public accountability provisions. Fourth, there has been a growth in ‘extra-parliamentary’ public accountability processes and social mobilisation processes initiated by civil society actors within the public sphere in response to the perceived dysfunction of formal public accountability provisions. Fifth, the processes of ‘Europeanisation’ has had a double-sided impact on public accountability procedures and discourses: in some instances, the Europeanisation of policy-making has fostered public accountability provisions; in other instances, Europeanisation has meant that effective accountability processes have been curtailed due to the pressure to adopt EU law and regulation without in-depth debate and scrutiny at national and subnational level. Finally, scientific-technological policy issues are differently characterised in the seven national contexts, with Latvia and the Czech Republic having experienced less social and political controversy compared with the other countries. In the case of the latter, the often controversial nature of scientific-technological developments has led to attempts to innovate in new forms of governance, with emphasis on stakeholder and citizen participation. This challenges more traditional public accountability provisions. The new mechanisms of public accountability, however, do not fully manage to provide viable alternatives to traditional accountability mechanisms to date.

European Law Journal, 2010

EU scholarship has seen several 'turns' during the last decade-most of them are theoretical, but some have also been empirical and even methodological. The most notable ones have been the institutionalist turn (eg Aspinwall and Schneider, Bulmer, Olsen), the constructivist turn (eg Checkel, Risse), the deliberative turn (eg Eriksen and Fossum), the governance turn (eg Kohler-Koch), and the government turn (eg Egeberg, Trondal). These turns have contributed to bringing EU scholarship closer to the mother disciplines of political science, law and economy, and also to bring these disciplines into mutual interaction. It may also have turned EU scholarship into more generic research compared to the sui generis EU studies that characterised the 1950s and 1960s. New questions are being asked, new theoretical tools are introduced to address old questions, and new methods have been applied. The book by Luc Verhey, Phillipp Kiiver and Sandor Loeffen perhaps illuminates an 'accountability turn' in EU scholarship. This turn contributes to import lessons from domestic governance to our understanding of continuity and change in EU governance, for example with respect to the relationship between legislative and executive institutions, as well as the relationship between government institutions and citizens. This review addresses the main arguments of the book, whilst also making some comments on each of them. This book results from a research project on political accountability focusing the interaction between international, European and national legal systems. As such, this is mainly a book about law, largely written by legal scholars. Multi-level accountability is studied from two perspectives throughout this book. The first is a top-down analysis of how international and European integration affect national legal and constitutional orders. The second, a bottom-up analysis on how common principles developed in different national legal systems, may influence international and European integration. The project contains three sub-projects that also organise the book. The first subproject concerns national parliamentary control of EU decision making. The second sub-project concerns accountability mechanisms in the relationship between governments and parliaments in EU Member States. The final sub-project concerns accountability in the executive branch of government. The book is organised according to these sub-projects. In effect, this volume is a conference proceeding and not so much an analytically and empirically integrated work. This is clearly seen by the lack of analytical introduction and conclusion of the book, and also an explicit editorial steer on the separate contributions. For example, the introductory chapter makes no effort to present a coherent analytical framework for the book as such, but reads more like a foreword. The second chapter, however, makes a terminological exercise on political accountability of value for the subsequent chapters. This chapter makes a valuable contribution to list key elements that accountability entails, and how it relates to democracy, legitimacy, representation and responsibility.