Non-majoritarian institutions, media coverage, and “reinforced accountability”

1Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

As non-majoritarian institutions are deliberately insulated from electoral pressure and ministerial hierarchy, they face an accountability deficit. This deficit can be reduced by embedding the organizations in a wider accountability landscape with multiple forums. Of particular relevance in this landscape are the news media, who may not only serve as account-holders, but can also reinforce other forms of accountability. Yet, we know little about the conditions under which the media cover non-majoritarian governance, and the existence of “reinforced accountability”. Focusing empirically on news articles about the Bank of England (1997–2020), we trace coverage levels back to the announcement of key policy decisions and, to some extent, policy outcomes. We also find evidence of reinforced accountability, both in relation to parliamentary oversight and the Bank's own, voluntary account-giving. These results provide reason for cautious optimism about non-majoritarian accountability, at least in the case of a salient organization.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Koop, C., & Scotto di Vettimo, M. (2024). Non-majoritarian institutions, media coverage, and “reinforced accountability.” Governance, 37(2), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12785

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free