Accountability and Multi-level Governance: More Accountability, Less Democracy?

Papadopoulos, Yannis

doi:10.1080/01402382.2010.486126

Cited by 156 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Often, lower-level policy experts are involved in governance settings such as expert groups (Gornitzka and Sverdrup, 2011;Larsson, 2003), Open Method of Coordination (OMC) networks (Borra´s and Jacobsson, 2004), the management boards of supranational agencies (Flinders, 2004) or comitology committees (Brandsma, 2013b;Egeberg et al, 2003). The fact that these governance structures mostly deal with matters of low political salience and mostly have a technocratic character enables actors to conceal their behaviour and, knowingly or unknowingly, act against the preferences of their constituencies (Brandsma, 2010;Papadopoulos, 2010Papadopoulos, : 1039. This eventually undermines pre-existing chains of control (in a Weberian sense).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other forms of governance that do not include voting, such as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), use informal ways of producing effects that may well include the overruling of minority positions. In this sense, it has been argued that multilevel governance encourages blame-shifting and dilutes responsibilities (Oliver, 2009: 13-14;Papadopoulos, 2010Papadopoulos, : 1033Papadopoulos, -1034, in particular, in situations where the actual decision-making procedures are not transparent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These persons, in turn, are embedded in national hierarchies (Busuioc, 2013). In sum, EU governance settings may be accountable to myriad forums, each having different agendas and powers (Papadopoulos, 2010(Papadopoulos, : 1039Vaubel, 2006). The vast number of forums thus negatively impacts upon the quality of accountability processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accountability in the post-Lisbon European Union

Brandsma

Heidbreder

Mastenbroek

2016

International Review of Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue takes stock of recent post-Lisbon additions to the European Union's accountability toolkit. It provides indications that older decision-making tools tend to be more accountable than newer ones, and that, in some areas, decision-making is shifting towards less accountable arenas. This introductory article reviews the debate on the gradual evolution of the European Union's accountability system and introduces key aspects of the post-Lisbon era that can be expected to affect accountability in the European Union, and that have been overlooked by the literature thus far: delegated acts, economic governance and regulatory evaluations. The contributions to this special issue address each of these domains in detail and highlight the degree to which accountability has been enhanced. A final contribution shows how these arrangements fit into the wider landscape of already-existing European Union accountabilities and how this landscape has developed over time. Points for practitionersThere is an apparent link between the relative novelty of the institutional setting in which a governance system is embedded and its accountability. Settings that include a strong role for the European Commission tend to be the most accountable ones, while those that rely mostly on intergovernmental logics, including those that have been created outside the Treaty framework, come with significant gaps.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accountability in the post-Lisbon European Union

Brandsma

Heidbreder

Mastenbroek

2016

International Review of Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Para Papadopoulos (2010Papadopoulos ( , p. 1032 A presunção da sua ausência significa que os que estão no poder têm a capacidade de agir sem considerar quem os autorizou para tal e cujas vidas são afetadas por essas ações (BARNETT;FINNEMORE, 2006, p. 171). Assim, a definição de Papadopoulos sintetiza o conceito como a responsividade dos decision-makers para com o fórum eleitoral, os eleitores.…”

Section: Considerações Finaisunclassified

Democracia digital, comunicação política e redes

Silva¹,

Bragatto²,

Sampaio³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To ensure that governance networks function according to these principles, Sørensen and Tørfing use the concept of metagovernance (the governance of governance networks), and argue that various metagovernance tools should be employed (Sørensen & Tørfing, 2009a). The main challenge, however, seems to be the democratic accountability problem (Papadopoulos, 2007(Papadopoulos, , 2009). Even though relatively few studies address questions of democracy and legitimacy (KohlerKoch, 2006), Papadoupolos (2009) with a reference to a famous phrase of Rokkan (1966) that the growth of governance networks in political decision-making seems to imply that votes count less and resources decide more than before.…”

Section: Lex Localis -Journal Of Local Self-government R Lyngstad: Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering Rationales for Local Self-Government - Impacts of Contemporary Changes in Local Decision-Making

Lyngstad¹

2010

LEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses two contemporary trends in local decision-making. Firstly, there seems to be more centralised decisionmaking today than before in important policy fields such as welfare policy. Secondly, informal governance processes outside formal government structures open up for a substantial influence from nonelected political actors. The paper asserts that there is a connection between the trends, and argues that the centralisation tendencies in welfare issues might affect and encourage governance processes in other local policy arenas. These policy fields are mainly within the socalled 'developmental policies' that often facilitate more networking and partnership activities in 'grey areas' between the public, private and civil sectors in collective problem solving. Accordingly, more attention should be given to policy fields where governance networks operate, and the implications for revitalising democratic political participation should be studied. The paper concludes that the well-established rationales for local self-government and local democracy need to be reconsidered by taking into account these new decision-making structures.

show abstract

Accountability and Multi-level Governance: More Accountability, Less Democracy?

Cited by 156 publications

References 51 publications

Accountability in the post-Lisbon European Union

Accountability in the post-Lisbon European Union

Democracia digital, comunicação política e redes

Reconsidering Rationales for Local Self-Government - Impacts of Contemporary Changes in Local Decision-Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About