Computerized Information Technology in the U. S. House of Representatives

Frantzich, Stephen E.

doi:10.2307/439462

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 2 Effective oversight may depend on the specific oversight powers given to the parliament, on whether the parliament has the ability to modify legislation (Loewenberg and Patterson 1979), on whether parliaments and parliamentarians are given proper information to perform their oversight tasks adequately (Frantzich 1979), on the role of individual MPs, on the role of committee chairs, on the saliency of issues, and on how aggressively the opposition performs its role (Rockman 1984). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana: The Importance of Parliamentary Oversight Tools

Stapenhurst

Pelizzo²

2012

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research note, we examine the nature of, and influences on, parliamentary oversight in Ghana. We find that while macro‐institutions are important when examining good governance and legislative effectiveness, meso‐level institutions (such as oversight tools) are more important than previously acknowledged. We also detect a positive relationship between an increase in legislative oversight facilities and the reputation of parliament and its members, the legitimacy of democracy and political institutions, and the success in curbing corruption. And finally, we confirm that the successful functioning of institutions depends on the presence or absence of specific contextual factors. In the case of Ghana, these factors are a relatively low level of partisanship at the committee level, parliament's ability to find alternative sources of information, and the demand for good governance.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana: The Importance of Parliamentary Oversight Tools

Stapenhurst

Pelizzo²

2012

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Effective oversight may depend on the specific oversight powers given to the parliament, on whether the parliament has the ability to modify legislation (Loewenberg & Patterson, 1979), on whether parliaments and parliamentarians are given proper information to perform their oversight tasks adequately (Frantzich, 1979), on the role of individual MPs, on the role of committee chairs, on the saliency of issues, and on how aggressively the opposition performs its role (Rockman, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Accounts Committees in the Commonwealth: oversight, effectiveness, and governance

Pelizzo

2011

Commonwealth & Comparative Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Bank, Consultant on Legislative AffairsFor the past 15 years the international community has assumed that by strengthening legislative capacity, legislatures are better equipped to oversee government activity and spending, to keep governments accountable, to secure good governance, prevent corruption, and create the conditions for sustainable economic development. The purpose of the present paper is to test this set of assumptions by focusing on one of the oversight tools that the international community regards as particularly important, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Structural and organisational features that affect the performance of PACs is analysed, the relationship between oversight activity and effectiveness is investigated, and it is assessed whether good governance is a function of oversight activity, of effectiveness or of both. The analyses reveal that while oversight activity does not always have a significant or directly positive impact on good governance, good governance is indeed a function of oversight effectiveness as the international community had long assumed.

show abstract

“…Effective oversight, they observe, depends not only on the availability of mechanisms, but also on several additional conditions. These conditions include whether the parliament has the ability to modify legislation (Loewenberg and Patterson 1979), whether parliaments and parliamentarians are given proper information to perform their oversight tasks adequately (Frantzich 1979;Jewell 1978), swings in the political mood of the country (Ogul and Rockman 1990), tensions between the executive and the legislature, the saliency of issues, and how aggressively the opposition performs its role (Maor 1999;Rockman 1984). A key question remains: Does legislative oversight help curb corruption?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…They emphasize that legislatures may adopt several tools for this purpose, such as hearings in committees, hearings in the plenary assembly, inquiry committees, parliamentary questions, question time, interpellations, and an ombudsman (Maffio 2002;Pennings 2000). Others have noted, however, that oversight tools are a necessary but insufficient condition for effective oversight, because effective oversight depends not only on the availability of tools, but also on additional conditions, such as the oversight powers given to the parliament, whether the parliament is able to modify legislation (Loewenberg and Patterson 1979), whether parliament and parliamentarians are given proper information to perform their oversight tasks adequately (Frantzich 1979), and the role of individual MPs and committee chairs, the saliency of issues, and how aggressively the opposition performs its role (Rockman 1984).…”

Section: • Public Integrity Summer 2014mentioning

confidence: 97%

Corruption and Legislatures

Stapenhurst

Jacobs

Pelizzo³

2014

Public Integrity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The control of corruption is an important element of governance and a stated goal of many governments. Legislative oversight is an acknowledged mechanism for controlling corruption, but little research has been undertaken on this subject, and national anticorruption strategies generally ignore the legislature. This article addresses the question of whether legislative oversight helps to curb perceived corruption, and if so, how. Statistical analysis using data from a global survey of 82 legislatures found that the presence of legislative oversight tools explains a major proportion of the variance in perceived levels of wrongdoing in countries with presidential forms of government, but much less in countries with semipresidential governments and less yet again in parliamentary systems. The analysis also found that the effectiveness of legislative oversight instruments varies by form of government. In presidential countries the most important instruments are committee hearings, hearings in plenary, and ombuds offices; in semipresidential countries they are question time, interpellations, and ombuds, while in parliamentary systems interpellations are the most important. These findings demonstrate that while the oversight apparatus is useful in helping curb malfeasance, not all tools are equally effective, and what works for some forms of government may not work as well, or at all, in other systems. Clearly, the "one size fits all" approach is inadequate when it comes to legislative corruption control.

show abstract

Computerized Information Technology in the U. S. House of Representatives

Cited by 19 publications

References 8 publications

Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana: The Importance of Parliamentary Oversight Tools

Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana: The Importance of Parliamentary Oversight Tools

Public Accounts Committees in the Commonwealth: oversight, effectiveness, and governance

Corruption and Legislatures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About