The DOI matches its Crossref record.
European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability
Abstract
European agencies have been created at a rapid pace in recent years in a multitude of highly pertinent and sensitive fields ranging from pharmaceuticals and aviation safety to chemicals or financial supervision. This agency phenomenon shows no signs of relenting, and the trend in recent years is towards the delegation of ever-broader powers. These bodies, meant to operate at arm's length from political control, have real power and their opinions and decisions can have a direct impact on individuals, regulators, and member states. Given the powers wielded by the agencies, who is responsible for holding these non-majoritarian actors to account? Is the growing concern surrounding agency accountability ‘much ado about nothing’ or are we faced with the threat of a powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy? These are precisely the questions that this book seeks to answer. It thus addresses one of the most relevant topics in current European governance: the accountability of European agencies. Scholars have increasingly called attention to the risk of placing too much power in the hands of such agencies, which operate at arm's length from traditional controls and cannot easily be held accountable for their actions. Although this is a major issue of concern, systematic empirical research into the topic is lacking. This book addresses empirically whether, and if so on what counts, agency accountability is problematic. It examines how the accountability system of European agencies operates at both the de jure as well as the de facto level, through an examination of legal provisions, relevant case law as well as policy documents and extensive interview material. Reflecting on these findings, the book also offers important theoretical insights for our understanding and study of accountability in a complex regulatory regime such as the EU context.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Negative outcomes invite accountability demands, whereas favorable outcomes may discourage forums from challenging decisions, even if flawed (Brandsma and Schillemans 2012;Busuioc 2013).”
From Holding AI Accountable Like Herding Cats: The Contingent Impact on the Legitimacy of Algorithmic Bureaucracy (2026) · cites this paper as Busuioc 2013
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability
Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. (2015) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12161 · Cited by 325
Self-citationReputation and Accountability Relationships: Managing Accountability Expectations through Reputation
Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. C. (2016) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12612 · Cited by 207
Self-citationFRIEND OR FOE? INTER‐AGENCY COOPERATION, ORGANIZATIONAL REPUTATION, AND TURF
Busuioc, M. (2015) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12160 · Cited by 202
Self-citationDemocratic Order, Autonomy, and Accountability
Olsen, J. P. (2015) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12158 · Cited by 206
Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04226-4 · Cited by 167
Metadata
- Authors
- Busuioc, M.
- Corresponding author
- Busuioc, Madalina
- ORCID
- Busuioc, Madalina
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-02-28
- OpenAlex
- W4256233435
- Semantic Scholar
- 2bfe7c85afceb896bd577e1f7534064ab795dbe2
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 16.37
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European Union Policy and Governance
- Social Sciences › Law › Administrative Law and Governance
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Regulation and Compliance Studies
- Keywords
- European agencies, agency accountability, EU governance, regulatory agencies, delegation of powers, bureaucratic accountability, EU case law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199699292.001.0001
- The paper
- Busuioc, M. (2013). European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199699292.001.0001