Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework¹

TLDR

The EU is widely regarded as suffering from serious accountability deficits. The article seeks to determine how to establish accountability deficits by examining conceptual, analytical, and evaluative questions about accountability. Accountability is defined as a narrow relationship between an actor and a forum, with obligations to explain and justify conduct, and the article identifies dimensions of accountability and proposes democratic, constitutional, and learning evaluative perspectives. The three evaluative perspectives generate distinct types of accountability deficits.

Abstract

Abstract: It has been argued that the EU suffers from serious accountability deficits. But how can we establish the existence of accountability deficits? This article tries to get to grips with the appealing but elusive concept of accountability by asking three types of questions. First a conceptual one: what exactly is meant by accountability? In this article the concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences. The second question is analytical: what types of accountability are involved? A series of dimensions of accountability are discerned that can be used to describe the various accountability relations and arrangements that can be found in the different domains of European governance. The third question is evaluative: how should we assess these accountability arrangements? The article provides three evaluative perspectives: a democratic, a constitutional and a learning perspective. Each of these perspectives may produce different types of accountability deficits.