Accountability (ansvarlighet)¶
Definitions in the sources¶
| Source | Definition/use | Page | U/T |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vedder & Naudts 2017 | The ability to provide good reasons to explain and justify actions, decisions and policies for a (hypothetical) forum | 206 | U |
| Vedder & Naudts 2017 | The forum can be individuals, supervisory authorities or organisations; broad stakeholder involvement is needed | 217–219 | U |
| Marres 2025 | Tech trials dismantle the social conditions for accountability | 1, 3 | U |
| Gros et al. 2017 | How responsibility was enacted and denied in the hearings; the complexity of surveillance challenged existing structures of political accountability | 73, 84–85 | U |
| Warren 2018 | Officeholders must be subject to sanctions and accountable to the norms of office for trust to be warranted | 88, 90 | U |
| Steiger 2019 | Democratic control and accountability is one of the seven elements of democracy; algorithms are a black box without external control | 81, 83 | U |
| Hankey et al. 2018 | Online political messages lack ex ante control and ex post accountability | 5 | U |
| Abiteboul & Stoyanovich 2019 | Transparency and accountability are linked with trust, especially in government processes | 4 | U |
| Mazzucato 2018 | Well-defined missions make monitoring and accountability easier | 805 | U |
| EEAS 2025 | Holding threat actors accountable through attribution and sanctions | 5, 38 | U |
Where usage diverges¶
- Who is to be held accountable? Decision-makers using algorithms (Vedder & Naudts), companies and states in surveillance (Gros et al.), officeholders (Warren), political actors (Hankey et al.) and foreign states (EEAS) [U].
- Towards whom? A forum (Vedder & Naudts, p. 206), the norms of office (Warren, p. 88) or everyday actors in society (Marres 2025, p. 3) [U].
Concepts easily confused with this one¶
- Accountability and transparency: Vedder & Naudts write that transparency as such does not constitute accountability (p. 215) [U]. See transparency.
- Accountability and responsibility: Gros et al. use responsibility for enacting or denying responsibility (pp. 84–85) [U], not for explaining oneself to a forum [T].
- The GDPR accountability principle: Vedder & Naudts discuss the accountability principle in GDPR Article 5 (pp. 211–214) [U]. The legal principle is narrower than their general definition [T].
How the concept is used in the primary documents¶
- NOU 2022:11:
- Privacy is described as ‘a shared responsibility’ (et felles ansvar) (p. 11) [U].
- The administration has a special responsibility to maintain the population's trust (pp. 61, 84) [U].
- The commission recommends that the division of responsibility be laid down in law or regulations where sharing personal data is part of a larger collaboration between public bodies (pp. 14, 85) [U].
- FFI report: the word is not used on the primary card. The report describes how lack of transparency makes attribution difficult (Sivertsen et al. 2026, p. 3) [U].
Open questions for Rebekka¶
- Do the documents use ansvarlighet (accountability to a forum) or ansvar (having a responsibility)?
- Who is the forum in the documents: residents, the Storting, the Data Protection Authority?
- Is Vedder & Naudts' definition useful as an analytical tool?