@misc{KlenkPieper2017,
  author    = {Klenk, Tanja and Pieper, Jonas},
  title     = {Accountability in a privatized welfare state},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-403251},
  pages     = {31},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {One of the most striking features of recent public sector reform in Europe is privatization. This development raises questions of accountability: By whom and for what are managers of private for-profit organizations delivering public goods held accountable? Analyzing accountability mechanisms through the lens of an institutional organizational approach and on the empirical basis of hospital privatization in Germany, the article contributes to the empirical and theoretical understanding of public accountability of private actors. The analysis suggests that accountability is not declining but rather multiplying. The shifts in the locus and content of accountability cause organizational stress for private hospitals.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{JantzJann2018,
  author    = {Jantz, Bastian and Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Mapping accountability changes in labour market administrations},
  volume    = {79},
  number    = {3},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-403642},
  pages     = {22},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The article explores how recent changes in the governance of employment services in three European countries (Denmark, Germany and Norway) have influenced accountability relationships. The overall assumption in the growing literature about accountability is that the number of actors involved in accountability arrangements is rising, that accountability relationships are becoming more numerous and complex, and that these changes may lead to contradictory accountability relationships, and finally to 'multi accountability disorder'. The article tries to explore these assumptions by analysing the different actors involved and the information requested in the new governance arrangements in all three countries. It concludes that the considerable changes in organizational arrangements and more managerial information demanded and provided have led to more shared forms of accountability. Nevertheless, a clear development towards less political or administrative accountability could not be observed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Ganghof2016,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen},
  title     = {Reconciling representation and accountability},
  series = {Government and Opposition},
  journal   = {Government and Opposition},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-413456},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {An egalitarian approach to the fair representation of voters specifies three main institutional requirements: proportional representation, legislative majority rule and a parliamentary system of government. This approach faces two challenges: the under-determination of the resulting democratic process and the idea of a trade-off between equal voter representation and government accountability. Linking conceptual with comparative analysis, the article argues that we can distinguish three ideal-typical varieties of the egalitarian vision of democracy, based on the stages at which majorities are formed. These varieties do not put different relative normative weight onto equality and accountability, but have different conceptions of both values and their reconciliation. The view that accountability is necessarily linked to clarity of responsibility', widespread in the comparative literature, is questioned - as is the idea of a general trade-off between representation and accountability. Depending on the vision of democracy, the two values need not be in conflict.},
  language  = {en}
}