The Transformation of Administrative Responsibility: A New Theory of Public Accountability in Modern Administrative Law
Abstract
Administrative responsibility has long constituted one of the fundamental pillars of administrative law, serving as the primary legal mechanism through which governmental authority is constrained, public officials are held accountable, and citizens are protected against unlawful administrative action. Traditionally, administrative responsibility has been understood primarily through the lens of legal liability, emphasizing compliance with statutory authority, judicial review, and procedural legality. However, the increasing complexity of contemporary governance has exposed significant limitations within this classical understanding. The expansion of regulatory institutions, collaborative governance, independent administrative agencies, and multi-level public administration has transformed the manner in which public authority is exercised, resulting in increasingly fragmented structures of accountability that challenge conventional doctrines of administrative responsibility.This study aims to reinterpret the concept of administrative responsibility by developing a broader theoretical framework capable of explaining the distribution of public accountability within modern administrative governance. The research employs a normative legal methodology combining doctrinal analysis, comparative administrative law, and conceptual legal synthesis. Primary legal materials include administrative law principles, constitutional doctrines concerning public accountability, statutory regulations governing administrative authority, and leading scholarly literature on administrative responsibility, public governance, and accountability theory.
Downloads
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Cane, P. (2011). Administrative Law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cane, P. (2011). Administrative Law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Craig, P. (2021). Administrative Law (9th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Craig, P. (2021). Administrative Law (9th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N., & Stewart, R. B. (2005). The emergence of global administrative law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3–4), 15–61.
Mashaw, J. L. (2012). Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Mashaw, J. L. (2012). Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, Politics and the State (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, Politics and the State (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press.
Smits, J. M. (2017). What is legal doctrine? On the aims and methods of legal-dogmatic research. In R. van Gestel, H.-W. Micklitz, & E. L. Rubin (Eds.), Rethinking Legal Scholarship: A Transatlantic Dialogue (pp. 207–228). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316688920.011
Van Hoecke, M. (Ed.). (2011). Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? Hart Publishing.
Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2012). The Study of Organisational Autonomy: Public Management and the Politics of Structural Choice. Palgrave Macmillan.
.png)
_.gif)







_.gif)











