Varieties of accountability: How attributes of policy fields shape parliamentary oversight

Abstract

This article demonstrates how attributes of policy fields shape parliamentary oversight across policy fields. Building on the accountability literature, the study develops the argument that parliamentarians will more likely oversee policy fields where cooperative forms of governance are more present, since these policies are more difficult to assess and have a higher need of legitimation. Using the example of policy evaluation demand by members of parliament in Switzerland, the study suggests that parliamentarians seek more control in a policy field, where public activities are more often delegated to nopublic actors or the need for legitimation is particularly high. Both effects increase with the policy field's closeness to science. These findings could be very relevant in order to understand how attributes of policy fields shape political institutions.

Warum initiieren Minister Evaluationen? Eine Fallstudie der flämischen Regierung in Belgien

“…Flemish public administration 'evaluation culture' (Barbier 2012) thus seems to follow international trends. The findings also suggest that the minister holding a particular portfolio is of less importance than the policy fields he/she is heading (Schoenefeld et al, this issue), which resonates with previous research on parliamentary demand for evaluations in the case of Switzerland (Bundi 2018). We emphasize again, though, that the policy notes in Flanders reflect the consensus of the (coalition) government, making the analysis for individual characteristics of ministers, such as gender and political party, not very meaningful.…”

“…Steering and accountability relationships can vary widely: between government and citizen, between donor and recipient, and between central and local governments. Evaluations that are set up for accountability reasons provide information to allow decisions on program continuation, expansion, reduction or termination (Bundi 2016(Bundi , 2018. Evaluations, from this angle, can also serve an important outward-facing function.…”

“…This study did not include empirical evidence for Belgium though. Studies on the demand of parliamentarians for evaluation (Bundi 2018;Speer et al 2015) also pointed at important policy-field differences.…”

“…A last dimension of analysis zooms in further on the comparison of policy fields. From the literature (Bundi 2018;Fobé et al 2018;Barbier 2012;Speer 2012), we know that policy-field dynamics are relevant as they function as policy arenas on their own, characterized by specific sectoral identities and policy styles (Freeman 1985;Howlett 1991). This means that, all context factors being equal, policy-field dynamics also influence evaluation praxis.…”

Policy evaluation and democracy: Do they fit?

“…Evaluations are an important instrument for parliaments. Evaluations can provide parliamentarians with useful information for legislation (Weiss, 1989) or they help parliaments to fulfill their oversight function towards governments (Bundi 2017b;Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2012). However, research suggests that members of parliament prefer evaluations, which confirm their own opinions (Whiteman 1985).…”