Advertisement

Global Organizational Model and Institutional Change of Ombudsman

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

Abstract

This chapter concludes my observations that point to an emerging global organizational model or set of ideas that now frame the activities of the ombudsman. Though not always coherent, these ideational influences are accommodated by an institutional context and carried by individual actors, whose role is often decisive in the development of the institution. The ombudsman is a peculiar institution of public accountability—both an institution and individual. Operating at the juncture of law and politics, the institution not only discerns changes in the general political climate but also engages in a constant renegotiation of its intra-institutional position, also involving conflicts over its institutional mandate. This is also where the global institutional models become indispensable, legitimizing the changes in the activities of these organizations, granting institutional ideas and giving sense of orientation. But such organizational blueprints can also treat actors differently, working as mechanisms of inclusions and exclusions. To a certain extent, the models come to hide the institutional tensions and political conflicts involved. This underlines the interplay of institutional context, actors and ideas in understanding the dynamics of transnational governance and the changing profile of the ombudsman as an institution of public accountability.

Keywords

Ombudsman institution Public accountability Global models Actors Politicization 

References

  1. Abraham, Ann. 2008. The Ombudsman as Part of the UK Constitution: A Contested Role? Parliamentary Affairs 61 (1): 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bakewell, R.D. 1986. The Ombudsman and Politics. Australian Journal of Public Administration 45 (1): 47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.1986.tb01038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudot, Pierre-Yves, and Anne Revillard. 2011. Le Médiateur de La République Au Prisme de La Démocratie Administrative. Revue Française d’administration Publique 137–138: 193–207.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.137.0193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovens, Mark. 2005. Public Accountability. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, ed. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence Lynn, and Christopher Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cardenas, Sonia. 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
  8. Erkkilä, Tero. 2007. Governance and Accountability—A Shift in Conceptualisation. Public Administration Quarterly 31 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Hans. 2008. The Ombudsman as a Marker of the Limits of Politics. Unpublished conference paper presented in Tallinn, 7 March 2008.Google Scholar
  11. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1987. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2004. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Magnette, Paul. 2003. Between Parliamentary Control and the Rule of Law: The Political Role of the Ombudsman in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (5): 677–694.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176032000124032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahoney, James. 2000. Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society 29 (4): 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2009. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Mulgan, Richard. 2000. ‘Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept? Public Administration 78 (3): 555–573.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Hara, Glen. 2011. Parties, People, and Parliament: Britain’s ‘Ombudsman’ and the Politics of the 1960s. Journal of British Studies 50 (3): 690–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palonen, Kari. 2003. Four Times of Politics: Policy, Polity, Politicking, and Politicization. Alternatives 28 (2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Pierson, Paul. 2000. The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change. Governance 13 (4): 475–499.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reif, Linda C. 2004. The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Risse, Thomas. 2010. A Community of Europeans?: Transnational Identities and Public Spheres. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303–326.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skinner, Quentin. 1969. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory 8 (1): 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations