Accountability as a Differentiated Value in Supranational Governance

• Author: Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen,Torben Beck Jørgensen
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074010366300
• Published date: 01 November 2010
• Date: 01 November 2010
• Subject Matter: Articles

The American Review of Public Administration
40(6) 742 –760
Accountability
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
as a Differentiated
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010366300
http://arp.sagepub.com
Value in Supranational
Governance
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen1
and Torben Beck Jørgensen1
Abstract
Accountability differs in its meaning, scope, and impact. Consequently, its expression as a value
and an instrument of “good governance” differs across time within and between organizations.
Through the prism of theories on public values, this article examines accountability as a value in
the administration of the European Union, that is, the European Commission. The article pres-
ents a theoretical discussion of value hierarchies, causality, and conflicts. Theoretical suggestions
are included in an empirical examination of value conflicts in the administrative reforms of the
European executive. It is argued that organizational characteristics of the European Commission
condition value implementation. The article finds that although accountability appears as the
“good value per se,” its applied period is brief and its status is contradicted by conflicting values.
Keywords
European Commission, public values, accountability, administrative reforms
Theoretical and empirical studies alike recognize the importance of values in public organizations,
public policies, and administrative reforms (Bozeman, 2007; Moore, 1995; O’Flynn, 2007; Van
Wart, 1998). Often, public value studies investigate the status and effects of values within states
(Beck Jørgensen, 2007; Henrichsen, in press; Van der Waal, 2008; Vrangbæk, 2009) or compara-
tively as value differences between states (Van der Waal, Pekur, & Vrangbæk, 2008) and focus
on a multitude of values (Beck Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). This article contributes to the litera-
ture in two distinctive ways. First, our article takes the value study beyond the state and examines
value dynamics in the supranational polity. Second, we do not focus on several values but con-
centrate on a particular value, that is, accountability.
The reform process in the European Commission constitutes an interesting learning lab for the
study of value changes, as the Union administration came under significant pressure in 1999. After
1University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark
Corresponding Author:
Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Centre for European Politics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5,
Copenhagen K 1014, Denmark
Email: dm@ifs.ku.dk

---

Martinsen and Beck Jørgensen
743
internal “whistle blowing,” the European Parliament requested an investigation of the Commission
for corruption and fraud by a committee of independent experts. The conclusions and parliamentary
response led to the downfall of the Santer Commission. There were calls for a more accountable
Commission.
Given this background—strong public criticism of corrupt behavior and the selection of a new
European Union (EU) Commission—a change toward a stronger emphasis on accountability could
be expected to be a process marked by few problems and hindrances: The public eye is on the new
Commission, the demand for increased accountability can hardly be characterized as controversial,
and it is thus a good guess that the implementation of accountability is carried out smoothly. Who
can be against?
However, this proved not to be the case. Even within a situation all focused on “good gover-
nance” reforms, various complications occurred. In this article, we look into two types of orga-
nizational complications, which may have influenced the process of value change. The organizational
characteristics that are hypothesized to have specific implications for value changes in the Union
administration include
•
• a•high•degree•of•functional•specialization, because this organizational differentiation is
expected to attach different meanings to accountability from one Directorate General to
another; and
•
• network•governance, because coordination through networks may in it self constitute
problems of accountability and may further imply varying value interpretations and
possible value conflicts.
In addition, the nature of the value in question—accountability—may also influence the process
of value change. Stated simply, this particular value is easily understood and nobody can oppose
it, which may explain why accountability is such a popular value.1 Furthermore, accountability is
a very general value to the extent of being empty for any particular meaning unless interpreted in
specific contexts. The advantage of accountability is exactly that it is (a) easily accepted and (b) may
fit well into many contexts and situations. Indeed, accountability has become an icon of good
governance (Bovens, 2007) and a central part of the symbolic politics (Edelman, 1964) of admin-
istrative reform. On the other hand, an open value as accountability is sensitive to pressures and
the value may be given unintended meanings in the course of achieving accountability in an orga-
nization. Because of the absence of a firm core of meaning, accountability is also expected to be
vulnerable to competing values.
The article is structured in three sections. The section Public Values as a Point of Departure
undertakes the theoretical discussion of public sector values from a general perspective. We focus
especially on how the importance of a value can be conceptualized and measured. The section,
Accountability as a Special Case reviews accountability as a value, and theoretical suggestions are
then included in the empirical examination of value conflicts and hierarchies in the administrative
reforms of the European polity in the section, The European Commission: The Multi-Organizational
Executive.
Public Values as a Point of Departure
The Concept
Value is a contested concept and there seems to be little agreement within public administration
on how to define the concept. Some writers define values by listing concrete examples of values,
and others by using synonyms, for example, principles, standards, ethos, and so on to pin down the
meaning of the word (cf. Beck Jørgensen, 2007, p. 366).

---

744
The American Review of Public Administration 40(6)
We do not add to this discussion, which also has roots long back in sociology, anthropology,
and social psychology. Our conceptual point of departure is intentionally simple. Following Van
Deth and Scarbrough (1995) and Hodgkinson (1996), values express “the desirable” as opposed
to “the desired.” Public values, then, constitute ideals to be followed in the public sector, or as
stated by Bozeman (2007, p. 17): “ the principles on which governments and policies should be
based.” Public Value Research is thus the theoretical and empirical analysis of normative mani-
festations in the public sector, and only few political scientists would possibly not consider public
values important in this sense. More specifically, some writers consider values important because
they are expected to have influential consequences in that they (a) form our perceptions of reality;
(b) give identity to individuals as well as organizations; (c) guide behavior; (d) give meaning to
public service; and (e) are necessary for the maintenance of communities and societies (cf. Kluck-
hohn, 1962; Lawton & Rose, 1994; Maguire, 1998; Verdikommissionen, 1999). Values can also
be regarded as important simply because they are difficult to change and change can be brought
about only after careful deliberation (Bozeman, 2007).2
This suggests that values can be effective means of control regardless of the physical distance
between the controller and the controlled. When first internalized or institutionalized, values can
be the driving forces for loyal civil servants as well as terrorists and constitute their own logic of
appropriateness. Normative power—control by values—is not soft power; it is hard-core business.
Intended value changes are therefore likely to be resisted in the course of their implementation.
Whether or not values do have these consequences is of course open to empirical analysis.
Values are presumably not equally important, and some may have a “lighter” nature than
others. Especially when exploring value changes—such as upgrading accountability in the EU
Commission—it is essential to having clear criteria on how to differentiate between strong and
weak values. In the following, we will consider (a) the spread of values in a public organization
or a political system and (b) relations between values.
The Spread of Values
Values may be looked for at several distinct levels or aspects of an organization or a political system.
Inspired by models of organizational culture, we include the architecture of public buildings, artifacts,
and symbols of all kinds (flags, uniforms, pictures, colors, etc.), organizational mission statements
and other strategic documents, legal rules defining the purpose and responsibilities of the organiza-
tion in question, the concrete behavior of civil servants, codices for the management, decision
making, routines and rituals, the mindsets of civil servants, organizational mechanisms and institu-
tional arrangements, and administrative reforms (Schein, 2004; Schultz, 1995; Van Wart, 1998).
A weak value can be identified only on a few of these levels. If, in particular, a value can be
observed only in official documents written to please a critical environment whereas the organiza-
...