IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/flgsxx/v41y2015i2p220-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating and Theorising Committee Scrutiny: A UK Comparative Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Cole
  • Laura McAllister

Abstract

This article addresses committee scrutiny undertaken through the three main UK devolved institutions (the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly). This is undertaken using a framework derived from scholarship about House of Commons select committees and a substantive comparative literature. Devolved committee scrutiny is thus compared and contrasted in relation to a three-phase analysis in terms of selection, evaluative and output elements.The findings are also discussed in relation to core elements of institutional theory – institutional path dependency, ideational path dependency, the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequence. This connection is used to develop several testable theoretical propositions concerning committee scrutiny. Findings about UK devolved committee scrutiny (and also scrutiny undertaken through House of Commons select committees) are also related to scholarship about local government scrutiny in Britain and contrasts and similarities specified. Furthermore, some testable theoretical propositions are applied to British local scrutiny.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Cole & Laura McAllister, 2015. "Evaluating and Theorising Committee Scrutiny: A UK Comparative Perspective," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 220-239, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:flgsxx:v:41:y:2015:i:2:p:220-239
    DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2014.904226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03003930.2014.904226
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03003930.2014.904226?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:flgsxx:v:41:y:2015:i:2:p:220-239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/flgs .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.