Abstract
This chapter looks at some of the factors that shape and inform accountability in European liberal democratic parliamentary systems. Specifically, we will identify the key institutional features that define parliamentary democracy, and seek to understand how they could mould national political cultures and processes, and in so doing, showing how the nature of their respective systems affect the form issues of accountability take. The chapter provides a snapshot of Europe’s parliamentary liberal democracies, capturing the range of this system type, showing how they function, and how differences in function have been manifest in practice. It assesses how and why different countries have different interpretations and approaches to accountability, and therefore how different agendas develop with respect to the issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Belgium.be—Official information and services. http://www.belgium.be/en/about_belgium/government/federale_staat#sthash.X8UZA57T.dpuf. Accessed 21 January 2016.
Bale, T. (2013). European politics: A comparative introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blais, A., & Loewen, P. (2009). The French electoral system and its effects. West European Politics, 32, 345–359.
Bovaird, T. (2009). In T. Bovaird & E. Loffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynne, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burnham, J., & Pyper, R. (2008). Britain’s modernised civil service. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.
European Commission. (2007). EU research on social science and humanities, report on analysing public accountability, procedures in contemporary European contexts.
De Winter, L., & Dumont, P. (2005). Belgium: Delegation and accountability under partitocratic rule. In K. Storm, W. Muller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Oxford: OUP.
Fitzmaurice, J. (1996). The politics of Belgium: A unique federalism. Hurst: London.
Hague, R., & Harrop, M. (2013). Comparative government and politics: An introduction (9th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, C. (2002). The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition, 37, 15–37.
Jeannot, G. (2003). The “service project” experience in the French civil service. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16, 459–467.
Kickert, W. (2008). The study of public management in Europe and the US: A comparative analysis of the national distinctiveness. London: Routledge.
Kickert, W. (2010). Public management reform in continental Europe: National distinctiveness. In T. Christensen & P. Laegreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to New Public Management. London: Routledge.
Knill, C. (1999). Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy, 19, 113–139.
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Pattern of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Mulgan, R. (2014). Making open government work. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J. (Ed.). (1995). Bureaucracy in the modern state: An introduction to comparative public administration. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Raadschelders, J., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2015). Global dimensions of public administration and governance: A comparative voyage. Hoboken: Wiley.
Rober, M. (1996). Germany. In D. Farnham, S. Hornton, J. Barlow, & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), New Public Managements in Europe (pp. 169–194). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Roberts, G. (2009). German politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Senate.be—The powers of the Senate: Competences. http://www.senaat.be/english/SenateCompetencesEN.html. Accessed 21 January 2016.
Senate.be—The powers of the Senate: Parliamentary relations. http://www.senaat.be/english/ParlRelationEN.html. Accessed 21 January 2016.
Senate.be—The powers of the Senate: Federal parliament. https://www.senate.be/english/federal_parliament_en.html#T.2.4. Accessed 21 January 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McCarthy-Cotter, LM., Flinders, M. (2018). Accountability in Liberal Democratic, Parliamentary Systems. In: Ongaro, E., Van Thiel, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55268-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55269-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)