This book examines accountability in the EU from different perspectives and considers whether EU citizens have real opportunities for holding decision-makers accountable. This book critically analyses five arguments which claim there are sufficient means for holding decision-makers to account in the Union. The main conclusion is that the current institutional set-up and practice of decision-making in the EU is one that merely creates an illusion of accountability. Using a strict framework focusing on the difference between formal mechanisms and actual opportunities for accountability, this highly coherent volume will be of interest to students and scholars of European politics, especially those interested in the democratic foundations of the European political system. Chapter 1 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 license. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tandfbis/rt-files/docs/Open+Access+Chapters/9780415480994_oachapter1.pdf

Do EU citizens have real opportunities to hold decision-makers accountable, or does the current institutional set-up in the Union merely create an illusion of accountability? That is the central question of this volume. There are widespread and growing concerns that the political system of the EU does not, in fact, afford citizens appropriate mechanisms of accountability. The aim of the current study is to ascertain whether such concerns are warranted.

This book shows that legislative transparency does not impact representation directly, but instead aids organized interests in influencing legislatures.

Transparency is generally seen as a corporate priority and a central attribute for promoting business growth and social morality. From a philosophical perspective, society has experienced a gradual paradigm shift which intensified after the Second World War with the advent of the information era. As a fundamental part of an inescapable, hegemonic capitalist system and given the insistent emphasis on it as a moral imperative, transparency, this book avers, needs to be examined and challenged as to its true governance value in building a sustainable twenty-first century society. Rather than clinging to the fantasy of complete transparency as the only form of accountability, corporate governance is strengthened in this way by practicing true social responsibility, which emerges not from outward-looking compliance but from a deeper place in the corporate psyche through inward-looking contemplation and the development of moral maturity.

The presence of sound corporate governance in a financial institution is important in maintaining the confidence of both the market and the public. The power that corporate governance holds over the success of some of the largest financial institutions in the world is not to be downplayed. This book methodically assesses the quality of corporate governance and mechanisms of accountability disclosures to various stakeholders. It is further intended to provide fresh insights into some specific corporate governance recommendations to help improve good governance in financial institutions, particularly in the United Kingdom and the EU but will also be applicable to other major economies. It explores what, when and how corporate governance has changed the financial institution functions and corporate executive behaviour by critically reviewing the pre- and post-financial crisis theoretical and empirical literature. Increasingly driven by the nature of complications, complexities and opacity in the operations of financial systems, corporate governance reporting plays an important role in the financial sector. It will provide insights into corporate governance disclosures over a long-term basis. This book should be a valuable asset to support the research of practitioners, students and all academics due to its stimulating and reflective insights into this fascinating topic.

The intent of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is to hold schools accountable for ensuring that all their students achieve mastery in reading and math, with a particular focus on groups that have traditionally been left behind. Under NCLB, states submit accountability plans to the U.S. Department of Education detailing the rules and policies to be used in tracking the adequate yearly progress (AYP) of schools toward these goals. This report examines New Jersey's NCLB accountability system, particularly how its various rules, criteria and practices result in schools either making AYP, or not making AYP. It also gauges how tough New Jersey's system is compared with other states. A significant number of Hispanic/Latino, African American, and low-income students met their targets in math in New Jersey, unusual because the minimum subgroup size for these groups is smaller than in most other states, meaning that schools in New Jersey are held accountable for more subgroups than similar schools in other states. It is noted that New Jersey's definitions of proficiency generally ranked below average compared with standards set by the other states, especially in grades 3-5 math, which may account for the higher pass rate in traditionally disadvantaged groups. Compared to the other 27 states examined, New Jersey places in the lower middle of the distribution in terms of the number of schools making AYP. The report concludes that although in some respects, New Jersey's NCLB accountability system is working as intended by the legislation, NCLB shortcomings are also evident, and should be considerations for Congress in future reauthorizations of the act. (Contains 9 footnotes, 5 figures, and 3 tables.) [For "The Accountability Illusion," see ED504712. For individual state reports, see ED504680-ED504694, ED504700-ED504711 and ED504719.].

The intent of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is to hold schools accountable for ensuring that all their students achieve mastery in reading and math, with a particular focus on groups that have traditionally been left behind. Under NCLB, states submit accountability plans to the U.S. Department of Education detailing the rules and policies to be used in tracking the adequate yearly progress (AYP) of schools toward these goals. This report examines Massachusetts's NCLB accountability system, particularly how its various rules, criteria and practices result in schools either making AYP, or not making AYP. It also gauges how tough Massachusetts's system is compared with other states. Massachusetts math proficiency standards range from a high of the 77th percentile in grade 4 to the 68th percentile in grades 6 and 8: to be considered proficient, grade 4 students must perform better than 77% of all other students in the nation. Although the reading standard is somewhat lower, ranging from the 65th percentile in grade 4 to the 30th percentile in grade 8, Massachusetts still expects approximately 95 percent of its grade 3-8 students to reach the reading standard in 2008. These dynamics, combined with the fact that Massachusetts does not apply a confidence interval to proficiency rate calculations, contribute to only one Massachusetts school making AYP in the study. Compared to the other 27 states examined, Massachusetts places at the very low end of the distribution in terms of the number of schools making AYP. The report concludes that although in some respects, Massachusetts's NCLB accountability system is working as intended by the legislation, NCLB shortcomings are also evident, and should be considerations for Congress in future reauthorizations of the act. (Contains 7 footnotes, 4 figures, and 6 tables.) [For "The Accountability Illusion," see ED504712. For individual state reports, see ED504680-ED504694, ED504700-ED504711 and ED504719.].