Suchergebnisse

English
Voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) are actors of growing significance within the 'information polity'. One testament to their significance is the UK government's recent proposal for the development of an electronic mixed economy that will see VSOs act as 'intermediaries' in the delivery of e-government services, including e-democratic services. As VSOs independently harness information and communication technologies (ICTs) in ways that are enabling them to strengthen their 'voices' within both the national and international political system, so interrelated questions about their political identity, democratic legitimacy and accountability become profoundly important within the intermediaries context.

This paper seeks to examine the role and functions of the representative offices of English local authorities in Brussels by considering the democratic legitimacy (i.e. linkage to elected councillors or mayors), accountability and transparency of the office's activities. The study demonstrates that the offices differ in their governance arrangements and funding, which has a direct impact on the approach to democratic legitimacy and accountability, noting that those offices which rely most heavily on direct funding from a single authority or a combined authority have the closest links to the authorities concerned. The transparency of the offices varies considerably, with clear distinctions between offices that are creatures of contract or where offices are an emanation of the authority concerned. The pattern here is less dependent on the pattern of funding of the office and depends more on the availability of resources and the approach adopted by the office itself.

Many charitable foundations seek to influence social change. As independent endowed bodies with their own funds, foundations are, on the face of it, not accountable so there are questions about the legitimacy of their actions. This article draws on contemporary examples and practitioner experience to discuss accountability and legitimacy in the context of foundations that want to influence social change need to work with others. For such foundations legitimacy and accountability are operational necessities.

Introduction / J. DeBardeleben & A. Hurrelmann -- Multilevel legitimacy : conceptualizing legitimacy relationships between the EU and national democracies / A. Hurrelmann -- Federalism and democratic accountability / J. Smith -- Between anarchy and hierarchy : governance lessons from global economic institutions / R. Germain -- Europeanization and democracy : the question of cultural identity / G. Delanty -- The quest for a European public sphere : news media and democratic legitimacy / H. Wessler... [et al.] -- Is there a European society? Social conditions for democracy in the European Union / A. Hurrelmann -- European elections and democratic accountability : the 2004 elections to the European Parliament / L. LeDuc -- National parliaments and the future of European integration : learning to play the multilevel game / T. Raunio -- Organized civil society and input legitimacy in the EU / J. Greenwood -- Euroskepticism as a path for inclusion : multilevel governance in the EU as seen from the East / D. Ost -- Gender equality and multilevel governance in East Central Europe / Y. Galligan & S. Clavero -- Conclusion / J. DeBardeleben & A. Hurrelmann

This article suggests that at national and local levels, the British state is seemingly incapable of solving multi-faceted and intractable social, economic and environmental problems alone. It is argued that new national and local governance arrangements, based on new ideas, different ways of working, and approaches to problem solving have brought into a sharper focus on the issues of democratic legitimacy, scrutiny and accountability. All three complex and ambiguous concepts have long been a concern in public administration. This article draws from existing conceptual frameworks to show that traditional forms of legitimacy, scrutiny and accountability are now under threat. It examines the merits of the new forms, with some recommendations for the future.

HMP Dovegate, which opened in 2001, is one of the latest in what is fast becoming a long line of privately managed prisons. But Dovegate is no ordinary prison: within its walls it accommodates a therapeutic community for 200 prisoners. This development calls for a critical appraisal of the predominant view that privatization seals the demise of the rehabilitative ideal (Beyens and Snacken, 1994), and a re-examination of the argument that it constitutes a means of breathing life back into the doctrine (Taylor and Pease, 1989). In a liberal democracy, the potential for the private sector to deliver rehabilitative regimes depends on its ability to demonstrate that it can do so effectively and efficiently while meeting the requirements of openness, accountability and legitimacy. Although much headway has been made in assuaging concerns about issues relating to accountability and legitimacy in the context of the private management of prisons generally (see Institute for Public Policy Research, 2001) these matters take on a special significance in the specific context of the private administration of a therapeutic community prison. Some of the problems raised in this article exist only because of certain idiosyncratic features of the organization and operation of the therapeutic community model of treatment. However, other difficulties are more generally applicable and need to be addressed in relation to any privately managed prison that has the declared aim of rehabilitation. The article begins with a brief description of the growth of prison privatization and of how it has flourished in the wake of a return to a 'just deserts' philosophy and an expansionist penal policy. This is followed by a discussion of the ideological objections concerning the legitimacy and accountability of prison privatization; how these matters have been addressed, in practice, by the state; and what residual problems remain for the private contracting of a therapeutic community prison like Dovegate in particular, and for the private management of a rehabilitative system more generally.

"This book offers a systematic treatment of the requirements of democratic legitimacy. It argues that democratic procedures are essential for political legitimacy because of the need to respect value pluralism and because of the learning process that democratic decision-making enables. It proposes a framework for distinguishing among the different ways in which the requirements of democratic legitimacy have been interpreted. Peter then uses this framework to identify and defend what appears as the most plausible conception of democratic legitimacy. According to this conception, democratic legitimacy requires that the decision-making process satisfies certain conditions of political and epistemic fairness."--Jacket