论文部分内容阅读
本文探讨的是欧盟新成员国(欧盟10国)的问责情况。首先,考察了问责概念的不同含义。其次,从三个理论视角(问责缺失、过度和陷阱)来分析欧盟10国问责存在的问题。然后,讨论欧盟10国问责体制的特征及其可能的解释。本文认为,欧盟10国问责体制的特点是,许多现有的正式问责机制与其实际效果之间存在差异(“休眠中的问责”)。这或许是因为,问责机制植根于特定的环境中(腐败高发、官官相护、信任度低),政治代表和公共行政的频繁变动,缺少内行、公正的问责主体。本文结论部分指出了这一研究对实证性比较研究和理论建构的启示。对实践工作者的启示问责是最重要的公共行政概念之一,但这方面的实证调查研究仍有待发展,特别是在中欧和东欧国家。实证研究必须要有与实践相关的假设来引导。本文提出了三个这样的假设——问责缺失、问责过度、问责不对称。这就需要考虑问责所植根的更广阔的背景,分析问责关系随时间的变化,仔细区分法律上和事实上的问责。
This article explores the accountability of new member states of the European Union (EU10). First, I examine the different meanings of the concept of accountability. Second, we analyze the problems existing in EU 10’s accountability from three theoretical perspectives (lack of accountability, excessiveness and traps). Then, discuss the characteristics of the EU 10-nation system of accountability and possible explanations. This article argues that the EU’s 10-nation system of accountability is characterized by differences in many existing formal accountability mechanisms from their actual effectiveness (“accountability during sleep”). This may be due to the fact that accountability mechanisms are rooted in specific circumstances (high incidence of corruption, poor government officials, low trust), frequent changes in political representation and public administration, and lack of an expert body of conduct, impartiality and accountability. The conclusion of this paper points out the enlightenment of this research to the empirical comparative study and theoretical construction. Enlightenment to practitioners Accountability is one of the most important concepts of public administration, but empirical research in this area remains to be developed, especially in Central and Eastern European countries. Empirical research must be guided by assumptions related to practice. This article presents three such hypotheses - lack of accountability, over-accountability, and accountability asymmetry. This requires considering the broader context in which accountability is rooted, analyzing changes over time in accountability relationships, and carefully differentiating between legal and de facto accountability.