制度问责:两个欧盟国家协作治理的差异化实施

IF 4.5 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE West European Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-27 DOI:10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639
I. Mancheva, M. Pihlajamäki, M. Keskinen
{"title":"制度问责:两个欧盟国家协作治理的差异化实施","authors":"I. Mancheva, M. Pihlajamäki, M. Keskinen","doi":"10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments increasingly apply collaborative governance based on deliberation that typically takes place in non-majoritarian institutions. However, collaborative institutions face accountability challenges depending on their institutional design. Still, empirical research is missing on the different choices member states make when designing collaborative institutions implementing European Union (EU) political goals. Using four theoretical principles of accountability, the study compares how Finland and Sweden implement the requirements for collaborative governance of two EU directives in national legislation and management plans. While Finland has provided more detailed and stricter rules resulting in higher process accountability, Sweden has delegated final decision making to authorities, achieving a higher degree of institutional independence. The results reveal that since the directives set only some of the key rules and procedures needed for achieving accountable collaborative institutions, member states’ discretion can lead to institutional variation even in similar governance contexts, resulting in differing institutional accountability and legitimacy of EU policies.","PeriodicalId":48213,"journal":{"name":"West European Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional accountability: the differentiated implementation of collaborative governance in two EU states\",\"authors\":\"I. Mancheva, M. Pihlajamäki, M. Keskinen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Governments increasingly apply collaborative governance based on deliberation that typically takes place in non-majoritarian institutions. However, collaborative institutions face accountability challenges depending on their institutional design. Still, empirical research is missing on the different choices member states make when designing collaborative institutions implementing European Union (EU) political goals. Using four theoretical principles of accountability, the study compares how Finland and Sweden implement the requirements for collaborative governance of two EU directives in national legislation and management plans. While Finland has provided more detailed and stricter rules resulting in higher process accountability, Sweden has delegated final decision making to authorities, achieving a higher degree of institutional independence. The results reveal that since the directives set only some of the key rules and procedures needed for achieving accountable collaborative institutions, member states’ discretion can lead to institutional variation even in similar governance contexts, resulting in differing institutional accountability and legitimacy of EU policies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"West European Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"West European Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"West European Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Institutional accountability: the differentiated implementation of collaborative governance in two EU states
Abstract Governments increasingly apply collaborative governance based on deliberation that typically takes place in non-majoritarian institutions. However, collaborative institutions face accountability challenges depending on their institutional design. Still, empirical research is missing on the different choices member states make when designing collaborative institutions implementing European Union (EU) political goals. Using four theoretical principles of accountability, the study compares how Finland and Sweden implement the requirements for collaborative governance of two EU directives in national legislation and management plans. While Finland has provided more detailed and stricter rules resulting in higher process accountability, Sweden has delegated final decision making to authorities, achieving a higher degree of institutional independence. The results reveal that since the directives set only some of the key rules and procedures needed for achieving accountable collaborative institutions, member states’ discretion can lead to institutional variation even in similar governance contexts, resulting in differing institutional accountability and legitimacy of EU policies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
West European Politics
West European Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: West European Politics (WEP)has established itself as one of the most authoritative journals covering political and social issues in Western Europe. It has a substantial reviews section and coverage of all national elections in Western Europe. Its comprehensive scope, embracing all the major political and social developments in all West European countries, including the European Union, makes it essential reading for both political practitioners and academics.
期刊最新文献
Re-evaluating the welfare preferences of radical-right voters: evidence from a vignette experiment Regional coalition heuristics: government participation and party perceptions in multi-level systems Police patrols, fire alarms, or ambulance chasers? Parliamentary oversight of European monetary policy and banking supervision Intergovernmentalism in a supranational field: France, Germany, and EU competition policy reform Promising links: how parties combine policy issues with group appeals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1