Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana: The Importance of Parliamentary Oversight Tools

In this research note, we examine the nature of, and influences on, parliamentary oversight in Ghana. We find that while macro‐institutions are important when examining good governance and legislative effectiveness, meso‐level institutions (such as oversight tools) are more important than previously acknowledged. We also detect a positive relationship between an increase in legislative oversight facilities and the reputation of parliament and its members, the legitimacy of democracy and political institutions, and the success in curbing corruption. And finally, we confirm that the successful functioning of institutions depends on the presence or absence of specific contextual factors. In the case of Ghana, these factors are a relatively low level of partisanship at the committee level, parliament's ability to find alternative sources of information, and the demand for good governance.     

Ought-Sentences and the Juristic Description of Rules

Abstract .
According to the normative theory of legal science, juristic ought-sentences describe rules, since legal science just deals with rules, and rules cannot be described but by means of ought-sentences. The author challenges this view. Two different constructions of "describing rules" are proposed: Namely, either interpreting or stating the validity of rules. "Interpreting rules," in its turn, can be understood in three different senses: listing all the possible meanings of rule-formulations, reporting the different interpretations a rule-formulation has in fact received by courts, or ascribing meaning to rule-formulations. However, the author argues that ought-sentences are not the proper tools to accomplish such tasks. At the same time, juristic ought-sentences cannot be understood as validity statements, since they neither mention any rule whatsoever, nor include the term "valid." Further, if validity-statements were ought-sentences, their logical behaviour would reflect the logic of rules themselves. However, as the late Kelsen argued, things do not run this way, since two inconsistent ought-sentences, if understood as validity statements, can paradoxically both be true, as well as both false. Hence, validity-statements cannot be reduced to ought-sentences iterating the rules which they (are supposed to) refer to.     

Fragments of a Theory of Legal Sources

Abstract. The author discusses a number of issues in the theory of legal sources. The first topic is whether sources should be conceived of as acts or texts. The alternatives are connected with two competing theories of legal interpretation (viz., the cognitive theory and the sceptical theory), which entail different concepts of legal rules and law-making. The second topic is whether a "formal" or a "material" criterion of recognition of sources should be preferred. The third section is devoted to the analysis of rules of change. Four theories of rules of change are discussed, and five kinds of such rules are distinguished. The fourth section concerns judicial law-making, with special reference to the creation of new legal rules by constitutional courts.     

Effects of Outsourcing on Performance Measurement and Reporting: The Experience of Italian Local Governments

Much has changed over the past few years regarding the financial and nonfinancial information Italian Local Governments (LGs) publish even as a consequence of the process of externalization of local public services. This paper is aimed at describing the causes and the effects of the administrative reform process that interested Italian LGs and at identifying the possible different dimensions of LG performance. In particular, this paper distinguishes among performance achieved by LGs strictu sensu (general performance), performance attained by the municipal group (group performance), and performance achieved by all other producers of local public services (global performance). The group and global dimensions of performance are briefly discussed, as well as the tools used to measure them.     

Stability in Parliamentary Regimes: The Italian Case

Abstract: In this article, we distinguish legislative stability from government stability and argue that the character of the relationship that exists between them is a complex one in which various combinations are possible. We focus on Italy because of the manner in which it has combined legislative stability with government instability. Our findings indicate that the relationship between legislative and government stability in Italy is best seen as curvilinear, that the analysis of government stability must take the number of governments as well as the duration of governments into account, and that the attributes of the party system that stabilize the legislature destabilize governments. Given these findings, we discuss their implications for explaining stability in parliamentary regimes in terms of events, “strong parties,” and strategic calculation. We conclude that legislative stability should not be treated simply as a secondary or derivative effect of government stability and that Italy can serve as a benchmark for further study of the nature and determinants of the relationship between the two in other parliamentary systems.     

Invalidity

Abstract . According to the common thinking of continental European lawyers, a rule is invalid each and every time either it was not produced in accordance with the metarules which govern the production of rules in the system, or it is inconsistent with a "superior" (higher-ranked) rule belonging to the same system. Thus, a better understanding of the concept of invalidity demands a careful inquiry into the various kinds of meta-rules which govern the production of rules as well as into the various kinds of normative hierarchies. The paper is mainly devoted to such an analysis. Five different grounds for invalidity are distinguished. The analysis further shows that invalidity can affect rules as well as legal provisions and legal sources. Further, invalidity should be sharply distinguished from non-existence (existence being a sufficient condition for rules to be applied). In most legal systems, invalid rules too are susceptible of judicial application: At least, until their invalidity is "declared" (in a constitutive way) by a competent organ (namely, a constitutional court, as far as statutory rules are concerned).