Accountability as a Bureaucratic Minefield: Lessons from a Comparative Study

Accountability by Professionalism or Managerialism? Exploring Attitudes Among Swedish and Norwegian Local Government Leaders

“…(2008, p. 227) refer to as the "European school of thought", focusing on the social mechanisms or means which facilitate and sustain accountability. Procedural or institutional mechanisms can be employed to create or enhance accountability, thereby reducing the risk of malpractice (Page, 2010). These mechanisms include tacit and internalized social and cultural norms defining not just legal but also appropriate behavior in public organizations (March & Olsen, 1989;Olsen, 2013) as well as formal and informal incentives and institutionalized control mechanisms.…”

“…Instead, as Cowell et.al. (2011, p. 434) point out, there has been more focus on philosophical, definitional and theoretical issues (but see Persson et.al., 2013;Page, 2010). As a result, we know very little about the extent to which professionalism and managerialism coexist as foundations for accountability or what these two apparently contending principles mean to different types of actors.…”

“…Thus, we are following the approach outlined by Page (2010), observing accountability mechanisms from the point of view of the actors rather than relying on a conceptual analysis. The Scandinavian region is normally regarded as a set of highly organized and governed societies (Inglehart, 2004;Gilley, 2009) and a region where accountability is seen as integral to governance and public administration.…”

Performance and Accountability—A Theoretical Discussion and an Empirical Assessment

“…NPM has had an impact on accountability, but bureaucratic policymaking in central government does not seem to be a forum where such features are particularly noticeable (Page 2010). Ministerial accountability is still a highly pervasive 9 medium of accountability, and politics tend to trump performance (Flinders 2001).…”

Positioning Accountability in European Governance: An Introduction

“…The basic idea of open government is that governments should not conduct their business secretly, behind closed doors, but rather out in the open, thus discouraging abuses of power and corruption. Openness is also seen as likely to prevent a runaway bureaucracy, and thereby to constitute one of the key elements of good governance (Addink 2005; see also Page 2010). On the other hand, openness is traditionally not much of an issue in the international relations field, where a diplomatic ethos and secrecy go hand in hand, even in the context of many intergovernmental organisations (Roberts 2004).…”