论文部分内容阅读
问责可定义为制度化的机制,迫使责任主体在不同问责质询会议解释他们的行为,在这种机制下可以提出质疑和实行强制性的惩罚措施。本文依据五种不同问责类型——政治问责、行政问责、法律问责、专业问责和社会问责——的描述性框架,对挪威、丹麦和德国移民政策中存在的不同“危机”进行了分析。责任主体和问责质询会议之间的信息交流、辩论和结果,对于了解官员在关键时刻是如何实行政治和行政管理措施至关重要。首先,问责动态强调有关政策变化的传统规范和价值观;其次,正式的政治问责未必导致诸如部长引咎辞职的政治后果。结果在很大程度上取决于问责力度的执行。对实践工作者的启示政治和行政领导以及公务员都面对着来自更为广泛的公众及内部或外部同行的一些要求。责任主体和问责质询会议之间的关系如何,对于了解公共管理机构的工作运行状况十分重要。这种关系可以描述为问责动态。如果出现危机,这种关系的存在就能消除危机或维持日常的行政管理事务和秩序。我们的问责机制框架提供了一个系统的方案,可用来重新认识上述五种问责机制的关系,这些关系在重组过程中或动议改变政策时应予以考虑。
Accountability can be defined as an institutionalized mechanism that compels principals to explain their actions at different questionable and questionable meetings, under which such mechanisms can challenge and impose mandatory punitive measures. Based on the descriptive framework of five different types of accountability - political accountability, administrative accountability, legal accountability, professional accountability and social accountability - this article examines the differences in immigration policies in Norway, Denmark and Germany, Crisis "was analyzed. The exchange of information, debate and results between the main body of responsibility and the accountability challenge meeting are crucial to understanding how officials are implementing political and administrative measures at a crucial time. First, accountability dynamically emphasizes traditional norms and values about policy changes; secondly, formal political accountability does not necessarily lead to political consequences such as minister resignations. The result depends very much on the implementation of accountability. Implications for Practitioners Political and executive leadership as well as civil servants face some of the demands from the wider public and from insiders and outsiders. The relationship between the main body of responsibility and the accountability questioning meeting is very important for understanding the work performance of public authorities. This relationship can be described as accountability. If there is a crisis, the existence of such a relationship can eliminate the crisis or maintain the routine administration and order. Our accountability framework provides a systematic solution to re-understand the relationship between the five types of accountability mechanisms described above, which should be taken into consideration during the reorganization or when moving to change policies.