Advertisement

Transnational Governance and Global Diffusion of the Ombudsman Institution

  • Tero ErkkiläEmail author
Chapter
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)

Abstract

This chapter explores the process of diffusion and transnational governance concerning the ombudsman institution. In identifying different phases in the global spreading of the institution, this chapter explores the evolution of the transnational policy model and discusses the role of transnational organizations that facilitate its global spread. I also analyse the role of transnational policy discourses and indicators on good governance and human rights. A major factor in the global diffusion of the ombudsman institution is the UN’s effort to codify National Human Rights Institutions. The ombudsman offices of individual countries have also promoted the institution, leading to horizontal learning between countries. There are also regional associations and institutes for promoting the ombudsman. Recently, international organizations for development economics, such as the World Bank, have been active in promoting the idea. The ombudsman institution currently has significant symbolic value for countries adopting it, as well as for the international organizations promoting it.

Keywords

Ombudsman Transnational governance Diffusion National Human Rights Institution International organizations Good governance 

References

  1. Abedin, Najmul. 2006. The Ombudsman Institution and Conflict Resolution in the Contemporary Third World Societies. Journal of Third World Studies 23 (1): 219–233.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2011. Conceptual and Functional Diversity of the Ombudsman Institution: A Classification. Administration & Society 43 (8): 896–929.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711417700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abraham, Henry J. 1968. The Danish Ombudsman. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 377 (1): 55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626837700106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alasuutari, Pertti, Marjaana Rautalin, and Jukka Syväterä. 2015. Organisations as Epistemic Capital: The Case of Independent Children’s Rights Institutions. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 29 (1): 57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-015-9205-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arjola-Sarja, Terhi. 2010. Oikeusasiamies Hyvän Hallinnon Kehittäjänä. In Eduskunnan Oikeusasiamies 90 Vuotta, 86–101. Eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehen kanslia.Google Scholar
  6. Ayeni, Victor O. 2014. Ombudsmen as Human Rights Institutions. Journal of Human Rights 13 (4): 498–511.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2014.886950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azubuike, Abraham. 2008. Accessibility of Government Information as a Determinant of Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Africa. In Best Practices in Government Information: A Global Perspective, ed. Irina Lynden and Jane Wu, 243. München: K.G. Saur.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, Colin J., Gili S. Drori, and John W. Meyer. 2012. World Influences on Human Rights Language in Constitutions: A Cross-National Study. International Sociology 27 (4): 483–501.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580912443575.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Colin J. 1997. Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross-National Adoption of Policy Instruments for Bureaucratic Accountability. Governance 10 (3): 213–233.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.401997040.Google Scholar
  10. Berliner, Daniel. 2014. The Political Origins of Transparency. The Journal of Politics 76 (2): 479–491.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blomgren, Maria, and Kerstin Sahlin. 2007. Quests for Transparency—Signs of a New Institutional Era? In Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms, ed. Tom Christensen and Per Laegreid. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Bollen, Kenneth A., and Pamela Paxton. 1998. Detection and Determinants of Bias in Subjective Measures. American Sociological Review; Washington 63 (3): 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2000. Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 33 (1): 58–86.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonnor, Peter. 2003. Ombudsmen and the Development of Public Law. European Public Law 9 (2): 237–267.Google Scholar
  15. Bousta, Rhita. 2007. Contribution à Une Définition de l’Ombudsman. Revue Française d’administration Publique, No. 123: 387–397.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.123.0387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caiden, Naomi. 1964. An Ombudsman for Australia? Australian Journal of Public Administration 23 (2): 97–116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.1964.tb01347.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardenas, Sonia. 2003. Emerging Global Actors: The United Nations and National Human Rights Institutions. Global Governance 9 (1): 23–42.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2014. Chains of Justice: The Global Rise of State Institutions for Human Rights, Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carl, Sabine. 2012. Toward a Definition and Taxonomy of Public Sector Ombudsmen. Canadian Public Administration 55 (2): 203–220.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2012.00208.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cejudo, Guillermo M. 2008. Explaining Change in the Mexican Public Sector: The Limits of New Public Management. International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (1): 111–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cheung, Anthony B.L. 2009. Evaluating the Ombudsman System of Hong Kong: Towards Good Governance and Citizenship Enhancement. Asia Pacific Law Review 17 (1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cini, Michelle. 2007. From Integration to Integrity: Administrative Ethics and Reform in the European Commission. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cole, Wade M., and Francisco O. Ramirez. 2013. Conditional Decoupling: Assessing the Impact of National Human Rights Institutions, 1981 to 2004. American Sociological Review 78 (4): 702–725.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413492762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Council of Europe. 2019. Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’). Adopted by the Venice Commission at Its 118th Plenary Session, Venice, 15–16 March 2019.Google Scholar
  25. Council of the European Union. 2000. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 1999/2000. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11317-2000-INIT/en/pdf.
  26. ———. 2001. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2001. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12141-2001-INIT/en/pdf.
  27. ———. 2002. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2002. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12747-2002-REV-1/en/pdf.
  28. ———. 2003. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2003. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13449-2003-INIT/en/pdf.
  29. ———. 2004. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2004. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11922-2004-INIT/en/pdf.
  30. ———. 2005. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2005. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12416-2005-INIT/en/pdf.
  31. ———. 2007a. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2006. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5779-2007-INIT/en/pdf.
  32. ———. 2007b. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2007. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13288-2007-REV-1/en/pdf.
  33. ———. 2008. EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2008. Council of the European Union. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14146-2008-INIT/en/pdf.
  34. ———. 2014. EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2013. Council of the European Union. https://cdn5-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/MR-ju_-mMINlUaW0AfAAkcJHmEhCMX6ODRWrVTCwR-o/mtime:1471533786/sites/eeas/files/2013_human-rights-annual_report_en.pdf.
  35. ———. 2015. EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2014. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24484/st10152-en15.pdf.
  36. Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman. 2011. The Ombudsman Around the World. http://en.ombudsmanden.dk/dokument/pdf/.
  37. Djelic, Marie-Laure, and Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, eds. 2008. Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dobbin, Frank, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett. 2007. The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? Annual Review of Sociology 33 (1): 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2004. Governance, Good Governance, and Government: The Case for Estonian Administrative Capacity. TRAMES 8 (4): 388–396.Google Scholar
  40. Drewry, Gavin. 2009. Ombudsman and Administrative Law—Bright Stars in a Parallel Universe? Asia Pacific Law Review 17 (1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dülmen, Richard van. 1986. Die Gesellschaft Der Aufklärer. Zur Bürgerlichen Emanzipation Und Aufklärerischen Kultur in Deutschland. Frankfurt/M: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Durham Peters, John. 2005. Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eijnatten, Joris van. 2004. Between Practice and Principle. Dutch Ideas on Censorship and Press Freedom, 1579–1795. Redescriptions. Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History 8: 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Elkins, Zachary, and Beth A. Simmons. 2005. On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Elliott, Michael A. 2007. Human Rights and the Triumph of the Individual in World Culture. Cultural Sociology 1 (3): 343–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975507082052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Erkkilä, Tero. 2012. Government Transparency: Impacts and Unintended Consequences. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ———. 2016. Global Governance Indices as Policy Instruments: Actionability, Transparency and Comparative Policy Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 382–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Erkkilä, Tero, and Niilo Kauppi. 2017. From Human Rights to Good Governance and Back: The Institutionalization of the European Ombudsman. In The Challenges of European Governance in the Age of Economic Stagnation, Immigration, and Refugees, ed. Chip Carey, 239–251. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  49. Erkkilä, Tero, and Ossi Piironen. 2009. Politics and Numbers. The Iron Cage of Governance Indices. In Ethics and Integrity of Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, ed. Raymond W. Cox III, 125–145. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2014. (De)Politicizing Good Governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the Politics of Governance Indicators. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 344–360.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.850020.Google Scholar
  51. European Commission. 2001. European Governance. A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 Final. European Commission.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2015. European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)—International Cooperation and Development—European Commission. International Cooperation and Development, October 23. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/eidhr_en.htm_en.
  53. European External Action Service. 2008. Ensuring Protection—European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders. European External Action Service.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2015. EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2014. European External Action Service. https://cdn5-eeas.fpfis.tech.ec.europa.eu/cdn/farfuture/D7EcjbZt8gAtsbB4PIgNwEa32xf274o7go16RJ7mR2U/mtime:1471533747/sites/eeas/files/2014-human-rights-annual_report_en.pdf.
  55. ———. 2018a. Armenia Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/armenia_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  56. ———. 2018b. Azerbaijan Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/azerbaijan_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  57. ———. 2018c. Egypt Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/egypt_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  58. ———. 2018d. Georgia Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/georgia_enp_ap_final_en_0.pdf.
  59. ———. 2018e. Israel Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/israel_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  60. ———. 2018f. Jordania Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/2013_jordan_action_plan_en.pdf.
  61. ———. 2018g. Lebanon Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/lebanon_enp_ap_final_en_0.pdf.
  62. ———. 2018h. Moldova Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/moldova_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  63. ———. 2018i. Palestine Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/pa_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  64. ———. 2018j. Platform 1 Core Objectives and Work Programme 2014–2017. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/platform_1_work_programme_2014-2017_mid-term_review_final_0.pdf.
  65. ———. 2018k. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. European External Action Service. https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/regions/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.
  66. ———. 2018l. Tunisia Action Plan. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/tunisia_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
  67. ———. 2018m. Ukraine Association Agenda. European External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_ukr_ass_agenda_24jun2013.pdf.
  68. European Ombudsman. 2016. Annual Report 2016. European Ombudsman.Google Scholar
  69. European Parliament. 2010. Report on EU Policies in Favour of Human Rights Defenders—A7-0157/2010. European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0157&language=EN.
  70. Fombad, Charles Manga. 2001. The Enhancement of Good Governance in Botswana: A Critical Assessment of the Ombudsman Act, 1995. Journal of Southern African Studies 27 (1): 57–77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070120029509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Freistein, Katja. 2016. Effects of Indicator Use: A Comparison of Poverty Measuring Instruments at the World Bank. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 366–381.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Hans. 2005. Trends Leading to the Establishment of a European Ombudsman. In The European Ombudsman. Origins, Establishment, Evolution. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  73. Gellhorn, Walter. 1965. The Swedish Justitieombudsman. Yale Law Journal 75: 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. ———. 1966a. Finland’s Official Watchmen. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (3): 327–364.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3310922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. ———. 1966b. The Norwegian Ombudsman. Stanford Law Review 18: 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 1968. The Ombudsman’s Relevance to American Municipal Affairs. American Bar Association Journal 54: 134–140.Google Scholar
  77. Gestrich, Andreas. 1994. Absolutismus Und Öffentlichkeit. Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland Zu Beginn Des 18. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Grønlie, Tore, and Anne-Hilde Nagel. 1998. Administrative History in Norway. Jahrbuch Für Europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte 10: 307–332.Google Scholar
  79. Gwyn, William B. 1980. The Discovery of the Scandinavian Ombudsman in English-Speaking Countries. West European Politics 3 (3): 317–338.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402388008424289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Häner, Isabelle. 1990. Öffentlichkeit Und Verwaltung. Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphisher Verlag.Google Scholar
  82. Harlow, Carol. 2006. Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values. The European Journal of International Law 17 (1): 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hazell, Robert, and Ben Worthy. 2010. Assessing the Performance of Freedom of Information. Government Information Quarterly 27 (4): 352–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hidén, Mikael. 1973. The Ombudsman in Finland: The First Fifty Years. Edited by Donald C. Rowat and translated by Aaron Bell. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 2000. Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman as a Guardian of Human Rights and Constitutional Rights: An Integrated Approach. In Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland 80 Years, ed. Ilkka Rautio. Helsinki: Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland.Google Scholar
  86. Høgetveit, Einar. 1981. Hvor Hemmelig? Offentlighetsprinsippet i Norge Og USA, Særlig Med Henblikk På Militærpolitiske Spørsmål. Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  87. Hossu, Laura, and Radu Carp. 2011. A Critical Assessment of the Role of the Romanian Ombudsman in Promoting Freedom of Information. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 7 (33E): 90–108.Google Scholar
  88. Hurwitz, Stephan. 1960. The Scandinavian Ombudsman. Political Science 12 (2): 121–142.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003231876001200201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ivanov, Kalin. 2009. Fighting Corruption Globally and Locally. In Ethics and Integrity in Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, ed. Raymond W. Cox III, 146–154. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  90. Karasoy, H. Alpay. 2015. Ombudsman in Turkey: Its Contributions and Criticism. European Scientific Journal, ESJ 11 (22). https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/6043.
  91. Karvonen, Lauri. 1981. Semi-Domestic Politics: Policy Diffusion from Sweden to Finland. Cooperation and Conflict 16 (2): 91–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001083678101600203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. King, M. 2005. Epistemic Communities and the Diffusion of Ideas: Central Bank Reform in the United Kingdom. West European Politics 28 (1): 94.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000297107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Klein, Rudolf. 1976. Ombudsman into Mediateur. The Political Quarterly 47 (1): 92–94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1976.tb02166.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Knudsen, Tim. 2003. Offentlighed i Det Offentlige. Om Historiens Magt. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  95. Konstari, Timo. 1977. Asiakirjajulkisuudesta Hallinnossa. Tutkimus Yleisten Asiakirjain Julkisuudesta Hallinnon Kontrollivälineenä. Helsinki: Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys.Google Scholar
  96. Koo, Jeong-Woo, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 2009. National Incorporation of Global Human Rights: Worldwide Expansion of National Human Rights Institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces 87 (3): 1321–1353.  https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Ladi, Stella. 2011. Policy Change and Soft Europeanization: The Transfer of the Ombudsman Institution to Greece, Cyprus and Malta. Public Administration 89 (4): 1643–1663.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01929.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Landman, Todd. 2013. Human Rights and Democracy: The Precarious Triumph of Ideals. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  100. Larner, Wendy, and William Walters. 2004. Globalization as Governmentality. Alternatives 29 (5): 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Lee, Chang Kil, and David Strang. 2006. The International Diffusion of Public-Sector Downsizing: Network Emulation and Theory-Driven Learning. International Organization 60 (4): 883–909.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Liu, Aviva Chengcheng. 2016. Two Faces of Transparency: The Regulations of People’s Republic of China on Open Government Information. International Journal of Public Administration 39 (6): 492–503.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1018426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Löwenheim, Oded. 2008. Examining the State: A Foucauldian Perspective on International ‘Governance Indicators’. Third World Quarterly 29 (2): 255–274.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701806814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Lynden, Irina, and Jane Wu, eds. 2008. Best Practices in Government Information: A Global Perspective. München: K.G. Saur.Google Scholar
  105. Mahon, Rianne, and Stephen McBride. 2009. Standardizing and Disseminating Knowledge: The Role of the OECD in Global Governance. European Political Science Review 1 (1): 83–101.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909000058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Marcussen, Martin. 2005. Central Banks on the Move. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5): 903–923.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Martens, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Botschaft Der Tugend. Die Aufklärung Im Spiegel Der Deutschen Moralischen Wochenschriften. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. The American Journal of Sociology 103 (1): 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Miller, Peter, and Nikolas Rose. 1990. Political Rationalities and Technologies of Government. In Texts, Contexts, Concepts. Studies on Politics and Power in Language, ed. Sakari Hänninen and Kari Palonen, 166–183. Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  110. OECD. 2003. Open Government. Fostering Dialogue with Civil Society. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. ———. 2005. Public Sector Modernisation: Open Government. Policy Brief. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  112. OHCHR. 2018. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/rightandresponsibility.aspx.
  113. Owen, Barry. 2000. France. In Comparative Public Administration, ed. J.A. Chandler, 50–74. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Pegram, Thomas. 2008. Accountability in Hostile Times: The Case of the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman 1996–2001. Journal of Latin American Studies 40 (1): 51–82.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X0700363X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Piironen, Ossi. 2005. Minimidemokratiaa ilman sisältöä?: Valtavirran demokratiamittareiden arviointia. Politiikka 47 (3): 189–204.Google Scholar
  116. Pohekar, Preeti Dilip. 2010. A Study of Ombudsman System in India with Special Reference to Lokayukta in Maharashtra. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.Google Scholar
  117. Przeworski, Adam. 2004. Institutions Matter? Government and Opposition 39 (4): 527–540.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00134.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Radaelli, Claudio M. 2000. Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy. Governance 13 (1): 25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. ———. 2005. Diffusion without Convergence: How Political Context Shapes the Adoption of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5): 924–943.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500161621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Ramirez, Francisco O. 2012. The World Society Perspective: Concepts, Assumptions, and Strategies. Comparative Education 48 (4): 423–439.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.693374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Reif, Linda C. 2000. Building Democratic Institutions: The Role of National Human Rights Institutions in Good Governance and Human Rights Protection. Harvard Human Rights Journal 13: 1–69.Google Scholar
  122. ———. 2004. The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Remac, Milan. 2013. Standards of Ombudsman Assessment: A New Normative Concept? Utrecht Law Review 9 (3): 62–78.  https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Robertson, K.G. 1982. Public Secrets: A Study in the Development of Government Secrecy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Rodan, Garry. 2004. Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia, Singapore and Malaysia. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rogers, Everett. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  127. Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2005. From Elections to Democracy: Building Accountable Government in Hungary and Poland. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Rowat, Donald C. 1973. The Ombudsman Plan: Essays on the Worldwide Spread of an Idea. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
  129. ———., ed. 1979. Administrative Secrecy in Developed Countries. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Sahlin, Kerstin, and Linda Wedlin. 2008. Circulating Ideas: Imitation, Translation and Editing. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. Royston Greewood, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby, and Kerstin Sahlin, 218–242. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Samaratunge, Ramanie, Quamrul Alam, and Julian Teicher. 2008. The New Public Management Reforms in Asia: A Comparison of South and Southeast Asian Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (1): 25–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sarker, Md. Masud, and Md. Bayezid Alam. 2010. Ombudsman for Good Governance: Bangladesh Perspective. Journal of Management and Social Sciences 6 (1): 13–23.Google Scholar
  133. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism. European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Schofer, Evan, and John W. Meyer. 2005. The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review 70 (6): 898–920.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Seppänen, Samuli. 2003. Good Governance in International Law. The Erik Castrén Institute Research Reports 13. Helsinki: The Erik Castrén Institute.Google Scholar
  136. Simmons, Beth A., Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett. 2006. Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism. International Organization 60 (4): 781–810.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Spence. 2000. Italy. In Comparative Public Administration, ed. J.A. Chandler, 1st ed., 126–147. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  138. Starr, Harvey. 1991. Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the International System. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (2): 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Steiner, Nils D. 2016. Comparing Freedom House Democracy Scores to Alternative Indices and Testing for Political Bias: Are US Allies Rated as More Democratic by Freedom House? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 18 (4): 329–349.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.877676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Stiglitz, Joseph. 1998. Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: The Private Uses of Public Interests: Incentives and Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. ———. 2002. Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics. American Economic Review 92 (3): 460–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. ———. 2008. Is There a Post-Washington Consensus Consensus? In The Washington Consensus Reconsidered: Towards a New Global Governance, ed. N. Serra and Joseph Stiglitz, 41–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Tant, A.P. 1993. British Government: The Triumph of Elitism: A Study of the British Political Tradition and Its Major Challenges. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  144. The New York Times. 1981. Stephan Hurwitz, Danish Ombudsman. The New York Times, January 25, sec. Obituaries. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/25/obituaries/stephan-hurwitz-danish-ombudsman.html.
  145. Thurlow, Richard C. 1994. The Secret State: British Internal Security in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  146. United Nations General Assembly. 1993. Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles).Google Scholar
  147. Unruh, Jesse M. 1965. The Need for an Ombudsman in California. California Law Review 53: 1212–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Weiss, Thomas G. 2000. Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges. Third World Quarterly 21 (5): 795–814.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713701075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. West, Harry, and Todd Sanders, eds. 2003. Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  150. Worthy, Ben. 2017. The Politics of Freedom of Information. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Würgler, Andreas. 2002. Conspiracy and Denunciation: A Local Affair and Its European Publics (Bern, 1749). In Cultures of Communication from Reformation to Enlightenment: Constructing Publics in the Early Modern German Lands, ed. James Van Horn Melton. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  152. Zanotti, Laura. 2005. Governmentalizing the Post—Cold War International Regime: The UN Debate on Democratization and Good Governance. Alternatives 30 (4): 461–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations