Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (114)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (15)
- Review (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Postprint (2)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Language
- German (105)
- English (33)
- Portuguese (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (139)
Keywords
- Germany (3)
- Denmark (2)
- Norway (2)
- accountability (2)
- labour market administration (2)
- public employment service (2)
- welfare state reform (2)
- Administrative federalism (1)
- Bürokratisierung (1)
- Civil service career (1)
- European Union (EU) (1)
- Federal Constitutional Court (1)
- German administrative system (1)
- German public administration (1)
- Länder (1)
- Ministerialverwaltung (1)
- Open Access (1)
- Political civil servant (1)
- Political craft (1)
- Politicisation (1)
- Politisierung (1)
- Spitzenbeamte (1)
- Weberian bureaucracy (1)
- buraucratisation (1)
- core executive (1)
- decentralisation (1)
- federal administration (1)
- governance (1)
- institutions (1)
- multilevel governance (1)
- politicisation (1)
- public administration (1)
- reforms (1)
- self-government (1)
- social security (1)
- the Basic Law (1)
- the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) (1)
- the German Constitution (1)
- the German federal architecture (1)
- the Länder (1)
- top bureaucrats (1)
Accountability is one of the most widely discussed concepts of public administration research and teaching in the last decade. But why is this case? Obviously accountability is, like its counterpart transparency, a “magic concept”, and an indispensable part of the prominent and omnipresent discourse on “good governance” as well as a significant element in debates about public sector reform. The same holds true for performance, which has been a magic and contested concept ever since New Public Management (NPM) entered the discourse about “modern” processes and structures of the public sector. But the third term in the title of this paper, legitimacy, even though it is one of the basic concepts of political science and democracy and is at the heart of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, has been surprisingly absent from current debates about the challenges of modern public administration, and for that sake also about the future of the welfare state. This chapter argues that different concepts of legitimacy lie at the heart of most debates about accountability and performance (input, output and throughput legitimacy), and that a better understanding of the relationships between accountability, performance and legitimacy can clarify some of the puzzles of contemporary research.
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.