Democratic Accountability in Decentralised Governance1

Bibliographic Data

ID6382200
AuthorsAnders Hanberger (0000-0001-6255-9991, Umeå University, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume32
Issue1
Pages1-22
Publication date2009-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScandinavian Political Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0080-6757 • E-ISSN: 1467-9477
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00220.x
OpenAlexW2038137207
LanguageEN
Citations received17
References cited32

This article develops a conceptual framework for studying democratic accountability in decentralised governance, and discusses critical issues about democratic accountability from a citizen's perspective. First, the concept is discussed and adapted to make it useful for studying democratic accountability in different governance structures. Second, the article scrutinises conditions for democratic accountability in decentralised governance based on three models. Third, democratic accountability is discussed with reference to a case study of public reviewers operating in four municipalities in Sweden. The study indicates that municipal auditors and the local media have the greatest impact on municipal policy. On the whole, auditors improve local governments’ internal control and systems for steering and monitoring municipal policy, whereas the media sometimes alter the policy agenda without changing the policy. Auditors maintain and support an elitist democratic orientation of democratic accountability, and the media maintain this democratic orientation and in addition promote democratic dialogue. Viewed from a citizen's perspective, the traditional accountability system does not work satisfactorily. State inspectors and municipal auditors – two important public reviewers in the current system – could improve their work to make it more useful to citizens’ democratic control. Another way discussed to develop democratic accountability is to promote participatory policy and concrete means of accountability (e.g. on‐site visits, conducted tours and different forms of democratic dialogue). The formal way to improve democratic accountability implies more transparency, monitoring and control, which may also lead to distrust and scapegoat thinking (i.e. a surveillance society), whereas concrete modes of accountability, more associated with participatory and deliberative democracy, imply mutual responsibility and trust building. Strengthening participatory policy, active citizens, collective responsibility and democratic dialogue could be an alternative to the emerging audit society

Accountability · Audit · Business · Citizen journalism · Corporate governance · Democracy · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Accounting · E-Government and Public Services · Law · Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub