Accountability differs in its meaning, scope, and impact. Consequently, its expression as a value and an instrument of “good governance” differs across time within and between organizations. Through the prism of theories on public values, this article examines accountability as a value in the administration of the European Union, that is, the European Commission. The article presents a theoretical discussion of value hierarchies, causality, and conflicts. Theoretical suggestions are included in an empirical examination of value conflicts in the administrative reforms of the European executive. It is argued that organizational characteristics of the European Commission condition value implementation. The article finds that although accountability appears as the “good value per se,” its applied period is brief and its status is contradicted by conflicting values.
Beck Jørgensen, T. ( 2007). Public values: Their nature, stability and change. The case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly, 30, 363-396.
2.
Beck Jørgensen, T. ( 2009). Value dynamics and infrastructure reform. International Journal of Public Policy, 4, 449-457.
3.
Beck Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. ( 2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39, 354-381.
4.
Beck Jørgensen, T., & Sørensen, D.-L. (2010). A global value discourse? An analysis of values in public codices. International Public Value Workshop, University of Leiden.
5.
Bovens, M. ( 2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13, 447-468.
6.
Bovens, M. (IN PRESS). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics.
7.
Bozeman, B. ( 2007). Public value and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
8.
de Bruijn, H., & Dicke, W. ( 2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84, 717-736.
9.
Brunsson, N. ( 1989). The organization of hypocrisy. New York, NY: Wiley.
10.
Christiansen, T. ( 2001). Intra-institutional politics and inter-institutional relations in the EU: Towards coherent governance? Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 747-767.
11.
Cini, M. ( 2007). From integration to integrity. Administrative ethics and reform in the European Commission. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
12.
Cram, L. ( 1994). The European Commission as a multi-organization: Social policy and IT policy in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 1, 195-217.
13.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. ( 1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
Edelman, M. ( 1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana : University of Illinois Press.
15.
Egeberg, M. ( 2006). The institutional architecture of the EU and the transformation of European politics. In M. Egeberg (Ed.), Multilevel union administration. The transformation of executive politics in Europe (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
Egeberg, M. ( 2007). The European commission. In M. Cini (Ed.), European Union politics (pp. 139-153). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
17.
Egeberg, M., Schaefer, G.F., & Trondal, J. ( 2006). EU Committee Governance between intergovernmental and union administration. In M. Egeberg (Ed.), Multilevel union administration. The transformation of executive politics in Europe (pp. 66-86). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
Erkkilä, T. ( 2007). Governance and accountability: A shift in conceptualisation . Public Administration Quarterly, 31, 1-38.
19.
Grøn, C.H. ( 2010). Same procedure as last year? An analysis of trust/control constellations in personelle management in the European Commission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Social Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
20.
Henrichsen, C. (IN PRESS). Administrative justice in a Scandinavian legal context: From a liberal and a social state to a market state or a milieu state. In M. Adler (Ed.), Administrative justice. Oxford, England: Hart.
21.
Hix, S. ( 2005). The political system of the European Union. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
Hood, C. ( 1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
23.
Hodgkinson C. ( 1996). Administrative Philosophy. Values and Motivations in Administrative Life. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
24.
Kluckhohn, C. ( 1962). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Koppell, J. ( 2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65, 94-108.
26.
Lawton, A., & Rose, A. ( 1994). Organisation and management in the public sector. London, England: Pitman.
27.
Maguire, M. ( 1998). Ethics in the public service: Current issues and practice . In A. Hondeghem (Ed.), Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. EGPA Yearbook (pp. 23-34). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
28.
Metcalfe, L. ( 2000). Reforming the commission: Will organizational efficiency produce effective governance? Journal of Common Market Studies , 38, 817-838.
29.
Moore, M.H. ( 1995). Creating public value. Strategic management in government . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Mulgan, R. ( 2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78, 555-573.
31.
Nugent, N. ( 2006). The government and politics of the European Union. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
O’Flynn, J. ( 2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 353-366.
33.
Olsen, J. ( 2007). Europe in search of political order. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
Papadopoulos, Y. ( 2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European Law Journal, 13, 469-486.
35.
Perry, J. L., & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in public management. The call of public service. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36.
Schein, E. ( 2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Schultz, M. ( 1995). On studying organizational cultures. Diagnosis and understanding . Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter .
38.
Smisman, S. ( 2004). Law, legitimacy, and European governance. Functional participation in social regulation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39.
Steenhuisen, B., Dicke, W., & de Bruijn, H. ( 2009). Soft public values in jeopardy: Reflecting on the institutionally fragmented situation in utility sectors. International Journal of Public Administration, 2, 491-507.
40.
Steffek, J. ( 2008). Public accountability and the public sphere of international governance (Recon Online Working Paper 2008/03). Retrieved from http://www.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_0803.pdf?fileitem=16662544
41.
Vandenabeele, W. ( 2008). Towards a public administration theory of public service . Leuven, Belgium: K.U. Leuven.
42.
Van Deth J.W. & Scarbrough E. (Eds.). (1995). The Impact of Values. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
43.
Van der Waal, Z. ( 2008). Value solidity. Differences, similarities and conflicts between the organizational values of government and business. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: VU University.
44.
Van der Waal, Z., Pekur, A., & Vrangbæk, K. (2008). Public sector value congruence among old and new EU member-states?Public Integrity, 10, 317-333.
45.
Van Wart, M. ( 1998). Changing public sector values. Hamden, CT: Garland.
Vrangbæk, K. ( 2009). Public sector values in Denmark: A survey analysis. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 508-535.
48.
First report on allegations regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European Commission: 15 March 1999. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/experts/default_en.htm
49.
Second report on reform of the Commission: Analysis of current practice and proposals for tackling mismanagement, irregularities and fraud: 10 September 1999. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/experts/default_en.htm
50.
Reforming the Commission: A White Paper part II-Action plan. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/1190/01/reform_commisson_pt_2_COM_2000_200.pdf
51.
European Governance: A White Paper. (2001). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf
52.
Communicating the Europeans Commission’s Programme of Administrative Reform. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.4qconference.org/en/previous_quality/2QC/COMMUNICATING_THE_EUROPEAN_COMMISSIONS_PROGRAMME_OF_ADMINISTRATIVE_REFORM.doc
53.
Commission decision of 15 November 2005 amending its rules and procedures. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_347/l_34720051230en00830090.pdf
54.
Code of good administrative behaviour. (2008). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/civil_society/code/_docs/code_en.pdf
55.
Alter-Eu. (2008). Secrecy and corporate dominance: A study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups (Report). Retrieved from http://www.alter-eu.org/
