地方政府公共预算研究——深圳与香港的比较（2008）

本文以《深圳市2008年部门预算》和《香港2008年财政预算案》两个文本为基础，结合深度访谈，对比了深圳和香港两地公共预算在公开性、自主性和问责模式三个维度上的差异，并试图找出两者差异背后的原因。研究发现，深圳市公共预算的公开性弱于香港，而自主性大于香港，问责模式较香港有根本差异。究其原因，是因为深圳市预算维持着一种“产出绩效”的绩效观，而香港预算案遵循“衡工量值”的原则。不同的绩效观导致了不同的预算编制原则，不同的预算编制技术，产生了不同程度的自主性，进而表现出不同程度的公开性，催生了不同形式的问责模式。本文还讨论了三种预算问责模式，提出了“核心预算问责机构”的概念。     

关于完善我国行政问责制的思考

近年来,中央党政机关和地方政府出台了一系列有关行政问责的条例、办法和规定,一些官员被问责,行政问责制在我国有了很大的进展。但是,在行政问责的主体、对象、事项范围、程序与方式等方面还存在诸多问题。为此,我国应进一步完善行政问责制,强化异体问责主体,明确行政问责对象,拓宽行政问责事项范围,健全行政问责程序规则,严格采用准确、恰当的责任追究与承担方式,以期推动以人为本、执政为民的责任政府的建设进程。     

我国决策问责制探析 张创新

决策问责是针对因决策失误而造成重大损失或恶劣影响的情形,对决策者依据相关法律法规、遵照既定程序进行责任追究的一种事后控制行为,其重点和难点在于其适用范围、程度度量及非决策问责情形的决策失误的鉴别.囿于认识的局限性、工具的阶段性和信息的有限性而造成的决策失误不在决策问责的范畴之中.公共行政起点的奠基意义诉求决策问责,前期问责成果的充分准备呼吁决策问责,重大决策失误的惨痛教训亟待决策问责.而建立健全决策问责制度树立责任意识是前提,完善问责程序是核心,健全制度和法律是保障.     

Another type of ‘Other’ in EU Law? AB (2) MVC v Home Office and Rahman v Secretary of State for the Home Office

EU citizenship law has to date paid little attention to the extended family members of Union citizens, a group mentioned just once in Citizenship Directive 2004/38. This note suggests that the current EU legal framework gives too much discretion to the member states, providing scope for the rights of EU migrant workers to be breached with impunity. It also questions whether the new mechanisms for addressing misapplication of EU law are robust enough to hold national authorities to account for their treatment of other family members.     

Web-Based Accountability in the Nonprofit Sector: A Closer Look at Arts,Culture, and Humanities Organizations

ABSTRACT

Web-based accountability continues to be an important consideration for nonprofit organizations. This research examines the impact of certain variables on web-based accountability in the arts, culture, and humanities sector. A content analysis of eighty nonprofit organizations was performed and multiple statistical analyses were used. Findings indicated that regulatory measures, including the prosecution and a detection index, are the most significant variables for determining web-based accountability for this group of nonprofit organizations.     

Managing Public Accountability: How Public Managers Manage Public Accountability

Accountability is of growing importance in contemporary governance. The academic literature on public accountability is fraught with concerned analyses, suggesting that accountability is a problematic issue for public managers. This article investigates how public managers experience accountability and how they cope with accountability. The analysis highlights a number of ways in which public managers do indeed “suffer” from accountability, although, conversely, most of the respondents were able to identify strategic coping mechanisms with which apparently problematic accountability requirements can be converted into practically useful procedures.     

The Politics of Time on the Frontline: Street Level Bureaucracy,Professional Judgment,and Public Accountability

This article reports on a study carried out on the impact of quality assurance mechanisms on street-level bureaucrats in Northern England (teachers, nurses and social workers). A key aim of the research was to explore the ways in which these mechanisms negotiate the much older regulatory function of time. The findings suggest that these mechanisms contribute to forms of time compression across professional activities, time compression in turn having consequences for professional judgement. The study explores the mechanisms via which this occurs, while also examining the implications of the research for debates about democracy, political regulation, and public sector management.     

Global Constitutionalism and Judicial Activism in Taiwan

In sociological research, law is usually considered as either a variable independent of the force of social change or a variable dependent on its shaping and moulding. Any changes in law, if not caused by social change, must be its effects. The post-1980s activism of the Council of Grand Justices (the Judicial Yuan) marked the emergence of what might be called the “global new constitutionalism” in Taiwanese society. Claiming a holistic concept of citizenship, the Grand Justices revamped the anachronistic pseudo-democratic mechanism through the medium of constitution interpretations. In order to facilitate democratic consolidation, the Grand Justices also painstakingly amended earlier versions of administrative law to facilitate the development of a reliable bureaucracy and enhanced public administration. As the battle for enhancing administrative accountability complicated the interplay between the judicial activists and other political actors, judicial activism unexpectedly linked to processes of regime change. At the same time, this activism provides researchers with a window on Tom Ginsburg's insurance thesis and Ran Hirschl's hegemonic preservation thesis regarding judicial activism.     

Democratisation and environmental non-governmental organisations in Indonesia

The spread of democratic ideas from the late 1980s, along with the development of the democratisation movement, contributed to the quantitative growth of environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) in Indonesia. In addition, the democratisation of formal institutions after the late 1990s facilitated ENGO activities. Importantly, democratisation has also contributed to the qualitative development of ENGOs. Democratic ideas “re-framed” environmental issues, politicising ENGO activities, even before the end of the Suharto regime. Since the late 1990s, democratic ideas have further shifted ENGO strategies to conform more with democratic values and institutions, while stimulating efforts to enhance accountability and representation within ENGOs. It is argued that these developments may enhance the quality of democracy.     

Potholes,pensions, and public opinion: the politics of blame in Putin's power vertical

What are the risks and rewards of power centralization in competitive authoritarian regimes, and who in the regime bears those risks and enjoys the rewards? The elimination of gubernatorial elections in Russia in late 2004 provides a unique opportunity to study public reaction to policies that replaced democratically elected regional leaders with Kremlin appointees, thereby further concentrating power in the hands of the central state while simultaneously reducing the level of democratic accountability in Russian politics. Using a 2007 survey of 1500 Russians, it is possible to observe how key measures of public opinion and regime support were influenced by the elimination of gubernatorial elections. Because the timeline of gubernatorial appointments was determined exogenously based on the expiration of elected incumbent governors' terms, by 2007 some regions had governors who still held electoral mandates, while others had Kremlin appointees with no electoral mandate. This quasi experiment allows us to draw surprising conclusions about whom Russians blame – and do not blame – when power becomes increasingly centralized in the hands of the president.