Jenny de Fine Licht

Transparency actually: how transparency affects public perceptions of political decision-making

Building on a widely held account of transparency as integral to legitimate and successful governance, this article addresses the question of how transparency in decision-making can influence public perceptions of political decision-making. An original experiment with 1099 participants shows that people who perceive political decision-making to be transparent judge the degree of procedural fairness highly and are more willing to accept the final decision. Perceptions of transparency are, however, largely shaped by transparency cues (e.g. statements provided by external sources) rather than by the degree of actual transparency, and no direct effect of actual transparency can be found on decision acceptance. The implication is that it is difficult to influence peoples acceptance of political decisions by means of transparency reforms, as people base their assessments of political decisions largely on considerations other than evalutations of actual decision-making procedures.

Same Considerations, Different Decisions: Motivations for Split-ticket Voting among Swedish Feminist Initiative Supporters

This article explores why supporters of small, non-established parties choose to vote for different parties in the elections to the European Parliament (EP) and elections to the national parliament. It uses individual-level data with open-ended questions from an online survey on supporters of Feminist Initiative (Fi) – a comparatively small and new Swedish feminist party – to map voters’ own motivations for split-ticket voting in the 2014 elections. Contrary to expectations based on second-order election theory, it is found that voters ticket-split in both directions: there are those voting for Fi in the EP election but not in the national election, and those voting for Fi in the national election but not in the EP election. These voters take the same types of considerations into account but nevertheless end up making opposite voting decisions. Voters clearly distinguish between the two levels – for example, by prioritizing different issues.

How do supreme audit institutions manage their autonomy and impact? A comparative analysis

ABSTRACT Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) are gradually becoming important agents of public management reform; a development raising issues of autonomy and potential capture by auditees as well as by the political system. Drawing on exploratory case studies of the rules and strategies of four high-performing SAIs – those of Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden – the article shows that SAIs have different approaches to the balance between autonomy and impact. These results imply that there is not only one way of organizing an efficient and autonomous SAI, but that different positions can prove viable.

Priority setting in Swedish health care: Are the politicians ready?

Background: Resource allocation in public health care principally involves politicians, administrators, and physicians. They all have their different roles, agendas and ambitions when it comes to how public health care resources should be spent. Previous studies on attitudes among health-care stakeholders have mainly focused on views and preferences among clinical decision-makers, while less attention has been paid to the views of health care politicians. Aim: The study aimed to investigate if the health care politicians’ views on priority setting and decision-making in health care differed from other stakeholder groups. Method: The study was based on a questionnaire conducted among health care politicians, administrators, and physicians in four county councils in Southern Sweden. Results: The findings show significant differences between the politicians and the other two groups in their views on health-care resources, financing, priority setting and decision-making. Conclusions: The findings could, at least partly, be explained by the special situation it means for the politicians to be forced to be re-elected every fourth year to stay in power.

Is auditing the new evaluation? Can it be? Should it be?

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the changing relationship between auditing and evaluation. Over the past several years, supreme auditing institutions (SAIs) in a number of advanced democracies have evolved from conventional auditing institutions to becoming increasingly concerned with assisting policy change and administrative reform in the public sector; tasks that are traditionally associated with evaluation. The paper discusses the potential consequences of this development for the SAIs themselves as well as for the audited and reforming institutions and for policy-making. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses qualitative method and draws on the extensive literature on auditing and evaluation. The analysis has also benefitted from the authors’ recent comparative research on SAIs. Findings The findings, summarized in six points, are that the growth of auditing in areas previously assigned to evaluators, has led to a shortened time perspective; stronger emphasis on the administration of policies; increased focus on efficiency of the audited entity; greater independence from the evaluated organizations; a shift in receiver of information toward the legislature and/or the public; and improved communication. Practical implications Evaluation as a professional and scholarly field has developed theories and advanced methods to assess the effectiveness of public programs. The growth of auditing may thus change the focus and quality of policy evaluation. Originality/value The paper speaks to both scholars and practitioners. To the best of the knowledge a similar analysis has not been done before.