Suchergebnisse

Essentially, this book discusses 'the relevance, limitations and/or applicability of specific values to the 'quality of governance'. This chapter focuses on 'integrity' as the basic value, reflecting on its relationship with quality. This is not a simple endeavor. Integrity and quality of governance relate to a multitude of topics and disciplines. Basic questions concern the precise meaning and relevance of 'governance,' of 'integrity of governance' and of 'quality of governance' (including many of the values addressed in this book, including legitimacy, accountability, transparency, lawfulness, and effectiveness). Our basic line of reasoning seems to be that integrity is an important (public) value amidst (many) others, while quality refers to all relevant values. This chapter focuses on some questions-perhaps even blind spots-in our interpretation of integrity within such a quality framework. A number of topics or questions will be addressed in the next paragraphs: (1) What is 'governance'? (2) What is 'integrity (of governance)'? (3) What is 'quality of governance' as used in research into public values, good government, and good governance? (4) What is the meaning/content of integrity in the context of quality of governance or good governance, taking into account the different phases of governance? The process of answering these questions will prompt suggestions for our research agenda.

In the first chapter, the editors introduce the content and the relevance of this book to the quality of governance and why and how public values matter. Central concepts are defined, the meaning and phases of governance are addressed, including an introduction of the significant public values stemming from the literature. These values are dealt with in relation to good and bad governance in the chapters of the book: democratic legitimacy, accountability, transparency, integrity, lawfulness, effectiveness, professionalism, and robustness.

Research into the harassment of politicians and other public officials in Northern America and Western Europe demonstrates that 30–93% of politicians report having experienced harassing or stalking behaviour which can comprise serious risks for the integrity of democracy and government. This leads to intriguing questions such as: what types of threats do politicians face and how do they respond to those threats? This article presents the results of research on those questions in The Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews and Q- methodology were applied to gain insight into the different types of threats and the ways in which aldermen cope with these threats and harassments. The types of threats and harassments are diverse from verbal abuse to physical violence. Q-methodology shows three types of rather different strategies towards threats and harassment. The first attitude is combative and decisive. The second attitude is vulnerable and cautious. The third attitude is down to earth and accepting. These findings are relevant because threats and harassment, unfortunately, are becoming an inevitable part of political life nowadays. More insight into the strategies used by politicians are relevant for fighting threats and harassment towards politicians and to strengthen the resilience of politicians.

How often integrity violations occur in Western governance, and the precise nature of these violations, is as yet not very clear. Data on this subject—drawn from experience in the Netherlands—are presented here. The main research question is: What is the scale of integrity violations within Dutch public governance and what is the nature of these violations? The article provides the results of research on the perceptions of 7,315 Dutch civil servants who were surveyed on integrity violations in their work surroundings. All told, 2,035 respondents (nearly 28%) reported suspicion(s) of integrity violations in their direct working environment in the preceding two years. A substantial proportion of respondents said that they had experienced inappropriate and ill-mannered behavior and relatively "small" violations, such as profiting at the expense of the organization (fraud, abuse of resources) through noncompliance with working-hour regulations or by abuse of the organization's resources. Integrity of governance in a Western context concerns corruption (and fraud), but there are indeed many other types of integrity violations that are prominent in the eyes of public sector employees. The moral quality of governance is thus also related to other values and norms than incorruptibility and impartiality. It seems important to incorporate this perspective into the fierce theoretical and practical debate on the corruption and integrity of governance.

How often are politicians confronted with public allegations of integrity violations? Which types of violations, government levels, and parties do these scandals involve? The Political Integrity Index developed in The Netherlands offers information about the number and types of political integrity scandals in the country since 2013. This article presents a brief overview of the relevant literature on integrity and corruption and on political scandals, with a summary of the conceptual framework and methodology used in our research, as well as some of the results. In the years 2013–2019, 355 political integrity scandals were documented, primarily at the local level of government (79%), involving almost all political parties but with the liberal–conservative People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie [VVD]) most prominent (90 scandals), and containing all types of integrity violations, with as the most prominent type "misconduct in the private sphere" (30%). The topic of integrity scandals involving politicians is relevant but nearly absent in research on public integrity and corruption. This is a challenge and an invitation to researchers in other countries to do comparable research, which might result in a theoretically and practically useful international political integrity index. For that research, the framework of the Political Integrity Index seems useful.