Rendición social de cuentas en España. El papel de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en la promoción de buena gobernanza durante la pandemia derivada de la COVID-19

  1. Manuel Villoria 1
  2. Fernando Jiménez 2
  1. 1 Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
    info

    Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01v5cv687

  2. 2 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Revista:
Revista española de ciencia política

ISSN: 1575-6548

Any de publicació: 2021

Número: 57

Pàgines: 111-137

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.21308/RECP.57.04 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Revista española de ciencia política

Resum

Success in building good governance requires the confluence of at least three variables: a) a critical juncture; b) initial reforms to generate horizontal accountability organizations; and c) a coalition of diverse political and social forces with sufficient capacity to overcome the collective action obstacles and the veto points of the system. This article investigates the work developed by NGOs in this coalition during the pandemic caused by COVID-19. Following the grounded theory approach, two sensitization concepts were used, namely, «good governance» and «social accountability». With all this, twenty NGOs were identified to narrate the control on governance integrity in Spain. Campaigns were defined as the target unit of study and, after a theoretical analysis and literature review, the understanding of success in this type of social control activities was established. Finally, two campaigns developed during the pandemic were analyzed from the NGOs’ point of view. These campaigns showed the importance that NGOs in this field give to a strategic approach instead of mere confrontation and, more in particular, the importance of working in an internal coalition and with public actors engaged in horizontal accountability.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Ackerman, Peter y Chris Kruegler. 1994. Strategic nonviolent conflict: The dynamics of people power in the twentieth century. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
  • Aguilar, Luis Fernando. 2007. Gobernanza y gestión pública. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Alvira, Francisco (coord.). 2019. Evaluación de la participación pública en el III Plan de Acción de Gobierno Abierto de España. Madrid: INAP.
  • Baldwin, David A. 2000. «Success and failure in foreign policy», Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 167-182. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.167.
  • Battilana, Julie y Marissa Kimsey. 2017. «Should You Agitate, Innovate, or Orchestrate?», Stanford Social Innovation Review [website], 18-09-2017. Disponible en: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/should_you_agitate_innovate_or_orchestrate.
  • Baumgartner, Frank R. y Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Baumgartner, Frank R. y Beth Leech. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400822485.
  • Blanes, Miguel Ángel. 2021. «La incidencia del COVID-19 sobre la transparencia de las instituciones públicas», Revista Española de la Transparencia, 11: 13-20. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.51915/ret.118.
  • Bob, Clifford y Sharon Nepstad. 2007. «Kill a leader, murder a movement? Leadership and assassination in social movements», American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (10): 1370-1394. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207300162.
  • Chaqués, Laura. 2004. Redes de políticas públicas. Madrid: CIS; Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
  • Chenoweth, Erica y Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works. The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  • Cohen, Jean L. y Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Dür, Andreas y Dirk De Brièvre. 2007. «The Question of Interest Group Influence», Journal of Public Policy, 27: 1-12. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000591.
  • Ebrahim, Alnoor. 2019. Measuring Social Change. Performance and Accountability in a Complex World. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609211.
  • Foley, Michael W. y Bob Edwards. 1996. «The Paradox of Civil Society», Journal of Democracy, 7 (3): 38-52. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1996.0048.
  • Fox, Jonathan. 2007. «The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability», Development in Practice, 17 (4-5): 663-671. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469955.
  • Fox, Jonathan. 2015. «Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?», World Development, 72: 346-361. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011.
  • García Guitián, Elena. 2016. «Representación y gobernabilidad. Una reflexión sobre el rol de los ciudadanos organizados en las democracias», en Joaquín Molins, Luz Muñoz e Iván Medina (dirs.), Los grupos de interés en España. Madrid: Tecnos.
  • Glaser, Barney y Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
  • Glasius, Marlies. 2012. «Dissident writings as political theory on civil society and democracy», Review of International Studies, 38 (2): 343-364. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000155.
  • Gobierno de España. 2020. IV Plan de Gobierno Abierto 2020-2024. Madrid. Disponible en: https://cutt.ly/iR34xua.
  • González León, Patricia. 2021. «La senda de la transparencia en España durante la COVID-19», Revista Española de la Transparencia, 11: 21-30. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.51915/ret.119.
  • Grant, Wyn. 1989. Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain. Nueva York: Phillip Allan.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Jones, Bryan D. y Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay y Massimo Mastruzzi. 2005. Governance matters IV: governance indicators for 1996-2004. Policy Research Working Paper Series, 3630. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3630.
  • Keck, Margaret y Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Kingdon, John W. 2010. Agendas, alternatives and public policies, updated edition (2nd ed.). Londres: Longman Publishing Group.
  • Klüver, Heike. 2012. «Informational Lobbying in the European Union: The Effect of Organisational Characteristics», West European Politics, 35 (3): 491-510. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.665737.
  • Landell-Mills, Pierre. 2013. Citizens Against Corruption: Report from the Front Line. Padstow: Troubador pub LTD.
  • Mahoney, Chistine y Frank B. Baumgartner. 2008. «Converging perspectives on Interest-Group Research in Europe and America», West European Politics, 31 (6): 1251-1271. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802372688.
  • Malena, Carmen, Reiner Forster y R. Janmejay Singh. 2004. Social accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice. World Bank, Social Development Paper, 76. Washington: The World Bank.
  • Mattoni, Alice. 2014. «The Potentials of Grounded Theory in the Study of Social Movements», en Donatella Della Porta (ed.). Methodological practices in social movement research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198719571.003.0002.
  • Mattoni, Alice. 2020. «The grounded theory method to study data-enabled activism against corruption: Between global communicative infrastructures and local activists’ experiences of big data», European Journal of Communication, 35 (3): 265-277. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120922086.
  • Medina, Iván y Luz Muñoz. 2016. «La relevancia de los grupos de interés en la Ciencia Política», en Joaquín M. Molins, Luz Muñoz e Iván Medina (dirs.), Los grupos de interés en España. Madrid: Tecnos.
  • Molins, Joaquín M. 2016. «Los grupos de interés en España. Del “amiguismo” a la pluralidad democrática (1900-2015)», en Joaquín M. Molins, Luz Muñoz e Iván Medina (dirs.), Los grupos de interés en España. Madrid: Tecnos.
  • Molins, Joaquín M., Luz Muñoz e Iván Medina (dirs.). 2016. Los grupos de interés en España. Madrid: Tecnos.
  • Montero, José R., Richard Gunther y Mariano Torcal. (1998) «Actitudes hacia la democracia en España: legitimidad, descontento y desafección», REIS, 83: 9-49. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/40184120.
  • Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. 2010. «The Experience of Civil Society as an Anticorruption Actor in East Central Europe», Romanian Journal of Political Science, 10: 5-33.
  • O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2006. «Notes on Various Accountabilities and their Interrelations», en Enrique Peruzzotti y Catalina Smulovitz (eds.), Enforcing the rule of law: Social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • O’Donnell, Guillermo. 2007. Disonancias: críticas democráticas a la democracia. Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
  • O’Meally, Simon C. 2013. Mapping Context for Social Accountability: A Resource Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  • Osborne, David y Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
  • Pape, Robert A. 1997. «Why economic sanctions do not work», International Security, 22 (2): 90-136. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.22.2.90.
  • Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
  • Peruzzotti, Enrique y Catalina Smulovitz (eds.). 2006. Enforcing the rule of law: Social accountability in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qh5t1.
  • Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1515/
  • Putnam, Robert D. 1995. «Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital», Journal of Democracy, 6: 65-78. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.
  • Rosa, Hartmut. 2020. «Cuatro niveles de auto-interpretación. Un paradigma para la filosofía social interpretativa y la crítica política», Encrucijadas, 20.
  • Sabatier, Paul. 1998. «The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe», Journal of European Public Policy, 5 (1): 93-130. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501768880000051.
  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realists View of Democracy in America. Illinois: The Dryden Press.
  • Strauss, Anselm L. y Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). California: SAGE.
  • Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in movement. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813245.
  • Taylor, Charles. 1979. Hegel and Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316286630.
  • Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1969. Democracy in America. Nueva York: Doubleday.
  • Tsebelis, George. 2000. «Veto Players and Institutional Analysis», Governance, 13 (4): 441-474. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00141.
  • Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. Nueva York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Weinstein, Jeremy M. 2007. Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808654.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet