Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework1

1.5kCitations
Citations of this article
1.9kReaders
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

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. © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A systematic review of open government data initiatives

650Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a Mechanism

572Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Publics, politics and power: Remaking the public in public services

549Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 744

70%

Lecturer / Post doc 121

11%

Researcher 101

10%

Professor / Associate Prof. 93

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 538

53%

Business, Management and Accounting 343

34%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 85

8%

Arts and Humanities 44

4%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
News Mentions: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free