IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i3p856-876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Bovens
  • Anchrit Wille

Abstract

Independent oversight institutions are critical components of the accountability landscape in modern democracies. This paper presents a framework for assessing the accountability powers of these watchdogs. This watchdog accountability index is an empirical tool to assess the key accountability powers of accountability forums that operate in a democratic constitutional context. The aim is to provide a richer evidence base to assess evolving external accountability arrangements and their effectiveness. Our approach breaks down the concept of watchdog accountability power into three distinct, conceptually coherent dimensions. We apply the accountability index to assess the strength of one of the main watchdog institutions in the EU, the European Court of Auditors in 2017. Data were collected by means of a study of secondary sources and by an expert survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Bovens & Anchrit Wille, 2021. "Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 856-876, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:3:p:856-876
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12316
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12316?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khaled Elsayed, 2011. "Board size and corporate performance: the missing role of board leadership structure," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 415-446, August.
    2. Matteo Mazziotta & Adriano Pareto, 2016. "On The Construction Of Composite Indices By Principal Components Analysis," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 70(1), pages 103-109, January-A.
    3. Daniel Kaufmann & Aart Kraay, 2008. "Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 23(1), pages 1-30, January.
    4. van de Steeg, Marianne, 2009. "Public Accountability in the European Union: Is the European Parliament able to hold the European Council accountable?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 13, August.
    5. Blume, Lorenz & Voigt, Stefan, 2011. "Does organizational design of supreme audit institutions matter? A cross-country assessment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 215-229, June.
    6. Ella Desmedt & Danielle Morin & Valérie Pattyn & Marleen Brans, 2017. "Impact of performance audit on the Administration: a Belgian study (2005-2010)," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 251-275, March.
    7. Pollitt, Christopher & Girre, Xavier & Lonsdale, Jeremy & Mul, Robert & Summa, Hilkka & Waerness, Marit, 1999. "Performance or Compliance?: Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296003.
    8. Busuioc, E. M. & Lodge, Martin, 2017. "Reputation and accountability relationships: managing accountability expectations through reputation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Adcock, Robert & Collier, David, 2001. "Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 529-546, September.
    10. Thomas Schillemans, 2008. "Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 175-194, June.
    11. Petia Kostadinova, 2015. "Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1077-1093, September.
    12. Koop, Christel, 2011. "Explaining the Accountability of Independent Agencies: The Importance of Political Salience," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 209-234, August.
    13. Arndt Wonka & Berthold Rittberger, 2009. "How independent are EU Agencies?," RECON Online Working Papers Series 12, RECON.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tomic, Slobodan & Rauh, William Jonathan, 2023. "How Political Culture Shapes Horizontal Accountability Outcomes: Evidence from 62 Countries," SocArXiv uf3nw, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2018. "Different Types of Data and the Validity of Democracy Measures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 105-116.
    2. Zbyslaw Dobrowolski, 2021. "Are the Supreme Audit Institutions Agile? A Cognitive Orientation and Agility Measures," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 52-62.
    3. Tomic, Slobodan & Rauh, William Jonathan, 2023. "How Political Culture Shapes Horizontal Accountability Outcomes: Evidence from 62 Countries," SocArXiv uf3nw, Center for Open Science.
    4. Stie, Anne Elizabeth, 2010. "Decision-making Void of Democratic Qualities? An Evaluation of the EU’s Second Pillar Decision-making Procedure," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 14, August.
    5. Stuart Kells, 2011. "The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing: Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(4), pages 383-396, December.
    6. Roy Gava, 2022. "Challenging the regulators: Enforcement and appeals in financial regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1265-1282, October.
    7. Schakel, Arjan Hille, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of Regional Government," MPRA Paper 21596, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Di Guardo, Maria Chiara & Marrocu, Emanuela & Paci, Raffaele, 2016. "The effect of local corruption on ownership strategy in cross-border mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4225-4241.
    9. Zim Nwokora & Riccardo Pelizzo, 2017. "Measuring Party System Change: A Systems Perspective," Research Africa Network Working Papers 17/048, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    10. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    11. Mireille Razafindrakoto & François Roubaud & Jean-Michel Wachsberger, 2013. "Institutions, gouvernance et croissance de long terme à Madagascar : l'enigme et le paradoxe," Working Papers DT/2013/13, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    12. Malte Luebker, 2019. "Can the Structure of Inequality Explain Fiscal Redistribution? Revisiting the Social Affinity Hypothesis," LIS Working papers 762, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    13. Popoola, Oluwatoyin Muse Johnson & Che-Ahmad, Ayoib & Samsudin, Rose Shamsiah, 2014. "Fraud and Forensic Accounting: Knowledge and Risk Assessment Task Performance in Malaysian Public Sector – Conceptual study," MPRA Paper 66680, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2014.
    14. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2015. "Performance and Accountability—A Theoretical Discussion and an Empirical Assessment," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 207-225, June.
    15. Gebka, Bartosz & Kanungo, Rama Prasad & Wildman, John, 2024. "The transition from COVID-19 infections to deaths: Do governance quality and corruption affect it?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 235-253.
    16. J. C. Sharman, 2007. "Rationalist and Constructivist Perspectives on Reputation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 20-37, March.
    17. Mansor H. Ibrahim & Siong Hook Law, 2016. "Institutional Quality and CO 2 Emission–Trade Relations: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 84(2), pages 323-340, June.
    18. Navaz Naghavi & Muhammad Shujaat Mubarik & Devinder Kaur, 2018. "Financial Liberalization And Stock Market Efficiency: Measuring The Threshold Effects Of Governance," Annals of Financial Economics (AFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Jørgen Møller, 2016. "Composite and Loose Concepts, Historical Analogies, and the Logic of Control in Comparative Historical Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(4), pages 651-677, November.
    20. Nora Lustig, 2013. "Commitment to Equity: Diagnostic Questionnaire," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 02, Tulane University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:3:p:856-876. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.