IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpxmxx/v19y2017i6p765-784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Administrative tradition and management reforms: a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four Continental Rechtsstaat countries

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Bach
  • Sandra van Thiel
  • Gerhard Hammerschmid
  • Reto Steiner

Abstract

This article investigates perceived accountability patterns of national agencies’ chief executives in four countries with a Rechtsstaat tradition and tests theoretical expectations about potential tensions between managerial reforms and administrative values using survey data (N = 453). All countries combine old and new forms of accountability requirements, while legal and financial accountability have not been replaced with results accountability. Switzerland and the Netherlands score highest on results accountability, though in combination with legal and financial accountability, which are dominant in Germany and Austria. Nation-specific characteristics seem more important for core values of public administration than generic characteristics of the Rechtsstaat model.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Bach & Sandra van Thiel & Gerhard Hammerschmid & Reto Steiner, 2017. "Administrative tradition and management reforms: a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four Continental Rechtsstaat countries," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 765-784, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpxmxx:v:19:y:2017:i:6:p:765-784
    DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205?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:rpxmxx:v:19:y:2017:i:6:p:765-784. 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/rpxm .

    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.