Analysing and Assessing Accountability

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2007

Volume

13

Issue

4

Pages

447-468

ISSN

1468-0386

DOI

10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x

Cited from

political_science

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Accountability
  • As Bovens (2007) defines the structure analytically, it combines three irreducible elements: (1) a transparent record of decisions and outcomes

    This sourceDefines accountability narrowly as a relationship between an actor and a forum in which the actor is obliged to explain and justify conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Bovens's own abstract defines accountability narrowly as actor-forum explanation, questioning and consequences; it shows no 'transparent record' element.

    “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.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Answerability Review Meeting
  • Its defining idea is answerability as a relationship enacted in real time: accountability is not a record on a shelf but the recurring moment at which a forum can pose questions

    This sourceDefines accountability as an actor–forum relationship in which the forum can question the actor and pass judgment.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:868ddd59fe4e · see in the full table