Why do public agencies seek accountability? The role of audiences

Accountability-seeking behaviors of public agencies are said to be motivated, among others, by attempts at pre-empting stricter mandatory provisions, logic of appropriateness motives, Machiavellian opportunism, reputational considerations, and a perceived need to compensate for the inadequacy of traditional arrangements. However, we do not know when a particular rationale, or a combination thereof, prevails. This study therefore examines how public agencies seek accountability, to whom and for what reason. Relying on data from 15 interviews with top-level managers/directors and 75 survey responses, it demonstrates that the type of audience to whom the account is rendered is a key explanatory factor as to why specific mechanisms become “activated.” This study furthermore uncovers why certain rationales are associated with specific types of audiences. Thus, rather than a “holy grail” of one set of driving motivations, our study suggests, one should look at the audience to understand why a public agency seeks accountability.     

Street-level Enforcement Style: A Multidimensional Measurement Instrument

This study investigates street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style and its underlying dimensions by developing and validating a multidimensional measurement scale. Developing a measurement scale for enforcement style is relevant because the number of underlying dimensions is contested and studies developing measurement scales are scarce. This complicates cross-sector and cross-national comparisons. Using a survey among inspectors of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, street-level enforcement style is found to comprising three dimensions: (1) legal, (2) facilitation, and (3) accommodation. This study contributes to more validated measurement instruments by presenting a 13-item measure that can be used to study street-level bureaucrats’ enforcement style.     

Do trials have real winners?

Conclusion In this paper, narrative coherence has been looked at as an institutional strategy in anticipation of the verdict rather than in retrospect of the crime or charge. The analysis of binary notions has been instrumental in the reconstruction of the coherence between the narrative(s) and the theoretical outcomes of the criminal trial. As the abstraction and polarisation of narrative versions focus on the achievement of professional consensus, the verdict, which is almost always based on the selection of a binary option does injustice to any narrative which is unfolded in the court-room. Whether the defendant is acquitted or convicted, therefore, does not make him a winner or a loser, as his personal experience is abducted and institutionalised for the facilitation of smooth institutional decision-making.     

Police,policy and politics in Brussels: scenarios for the shift from sovereignty to solidarity

This article analyses the evolution of European Union (EU) police cooperation on the basis of structural processes in the form of agencification, regulation and standardization, as well as substantive processes in the form of information-sharing and multi-disciplinary cooperation. The Lisbon Treaty holds some key conditions for further integration. The level of integration of police cooperation in the EU is measured by analysing institutional power, the regulatory framework and transnational professionalism. Despite a positive score on each of these levels, member states remain caught between national sovereignty and solidarity. As a consequence, they face an implementation gap and have not embedded European police cooperation in their domestic systems. Building on the pro-integrative moves that have been introduced by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty, improved governance and deeper integration can be achieved by means of more active parliamentary involvement, independent police oversight (both at European and at the national level), the mainstreaming of cooperation mechanisms and a systematic Europe-wide cultivation of police professionalism. Within the realm of internal security cooperation in the EU, a concerted effort is required which demands close consultation between relevant institutional actors and the professional actors in the member states.