Andreas Eriksen

• Eriksen, Andreas (2020). Accountability and the Multidimensional Mandate. Political research quarterly.  ISSN 1065-9129. . doi: 10.1177/1065912920906880 Full text in Research Archive. Show summary

  Public organizations are subject to many kinds of control mechanisms and analysts worry that they often suffer from an “accountability overload.” This article argues that such diagnoses are typically set without an adequate demarcation criterion for identifying accountability practices and separating them from other kinds of interaction, such as strategic pursuit of power or reputational standing. In response, the suggestion is that accountability practices should be restricted to procedures that track the mandate of the organization. This requires clarification of how mandates can be seen as more than a mere heap of conflicting considerations. The concept of a “multidimensional mandate” is introduced as a heuristic for thinking about how different perspectives on organizational action can be integrated. The interpretive test for deciding if a procedure qualifies as an accountability practice is whether it is sufficiently sensitive to the intertwinement of the goals and commitments of the organization. Neither account-givers nor account-holders can legitimately refrain from orienting themselves in this broader normative framework.

• Eriksen, Andreas (2020). Political Values in Independent Agencies. Regulation & Governance.  ISSN 1748-5983. . doi: 10.1111/rego.12299 Full text in Research Archive.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2020). The political literacy of experts. Ratio Juris.  ISSN 0952-1917.  33(1), s 82- 97 . doi: 10.1111/raju.12269
• Eriksen, Andreas & Katsaitis, Alexander (2020). Accountability through mutual attunement: How can parliamentary hearings connect the elected and the unelected?. Public Policy and Administration.  ISSN 0952-0767. . doi: 10.1177/0952076720977606 Full text in Research Archive. Show summary

  The increased authority delegated to independent agencies raises questions about the conditions of politically accountable governance, and specifically parliament’s role as a representative institution. Focusing on committee hearings as an accountability mechanism, we ask: How can a parliament employ hearings to ensure that the ends pursued by agencies have a democratic foundation? We propose a model of “mutual attunement” where accountability relations presuppose a process of working-out shared understandings of the ends, means and circumstances of policy needs. We test our argument through a case study assessing the interaction between the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic & Monetary Affairs and the European Securities and Markets Authority. Theoretically, we contribute to discussions on agency accountability and European governance, while providing a novel conceptual model and the first analysis of its kind.

• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Conflicting duties and restitution of the trusting relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics.  ISSN 0306-6800.  44(11), s 1- 6 . doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104682 Full text in Research Archive. Show summary

  It is often claimed that medical professionals are subject to conflicting duties in their role morality. Some hold that the overridden duty taints the professional and generates a patient claim to a form of moral compensation. This paper challenges such a ‘compensation view’ of conflict and argues that it misleadingly makes the role morality into a personal contract between professional and patient. Two competing views are therefore considered. The ‘unity view’ argues that there are no real conflicts between professional duties. Hence, there can be no residual duties that are impossible to discharge and no special claim on the part of the patient. It is argued that this fails because the institutional nature of the role morality requires us to accept possibility of conflict. The paper articulates and defends a third view, where conflict triggers a professional duty of restitution. This duty is not a matter of making amends for a previous wrong, but rather a matter of rebuilding a trusting relationship that has been damaged due to blameless circumstances.

• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Reclaiming Responsibility: The Case of Welfare-to-Work Policy. Journal of Social Policy.  ISSN 0047-2794.  s 1- 18 . doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000612
• Eriksen, Andreas & Molander, Anders (2018). Welfare reform and public justification. Policy Studies.  ISSN 0144-2872.  s 1- 20 . doi: 10.1080/01442872.2018.1538487
• Eriksen, Andreas (2015). Beyond Professional Duty: Does Supererogation Belong to the Morality of Roles?. International Journal of Applied Philosophy.  ISSN 0739-098X.  29(1) . doi: 10.5840/ijap201561842
• Eriksen, Andreas (2015). Should eudaimonia structure professional virtue?. Journal of Philosophy of Education.  ISSN 0309-8249.  50(4), s 605- 618 . doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12162
• Eriksen, Andreas (2015). The authority of professional roles. Journal of Social Philosophy.  ISSN 0047-2786.  46(3), s 373- 391 . doi: 10.1111/josp.12103 Full text in Research Archive.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2015). What is professional integrity?. Etikk i praksis.  ISSN 1890-3991.  9(2), s 3- 17 . doi: 10.5324/eip.v9i2.1836 Full text in Research Archive.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2011). Hva er moralsk forpliktelse? En drøfting av tre forslag, I: Hans Erik Næss & Thomas Hylland Eriksen (red.),  Kulturell kompleksitet i det nye Norge.  Unipub forlag.  ISBN 9788274775282.  Kapittel 15.  s 235 - 247

View all works in Cristin

• Eriksen, Andreas (2021). Expert Networking of International Bodies and Democratic Legitimacy.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2020). Har politiske verdier en plass i forvaltningen?. Stat og styring.  ISSN 0803-0103.  30(3) Show summary

  Forvaltningen utøver stadig mer makt på armlengdes avstand fra folkevalgte politikere. Bør denne makten involvere politiske vurderinger i tillegg til faglige? Ja, demokratiet avhenger av at den gjør det.

• Eriksen, Andreas (2019). Agency Accountability: Management of Expectations or Answerability to Mandate?.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2019). The Accountability of Independent Agencies.
• Eriksen, Andreas & Katsaitis, Alexander (2019). Accountability through Mutual Attunement.
• Eriksen, Andreas & Katsaitis, Alexander (2019). Accountability through Mutual Attunement: Parliamentary Hearings & Agency Oversight in the European Union.
• Katsaitis, Alexander & Eriksen, Andreas (2019). Accountability and the Forging of Agency Ends: The European Security and Markets Authority in the European Parliament’s Committee Hearings.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Blog: “Accountability overload”: Too much of a good thing?.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Blog: Conflicts of duty: What do they mean?.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Blog: Have Welfare-to-Work Reforms Promoted Citizen Responsibility?.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Legitimate Agency Reasoning. ARENA Working Papers. 1. Show summary

  The paper seeks to develop a framework for assessing the legitimacy reasoning in regulatory agencies. It starts by engaging critically with two prominent models. The first model sees the legitimacy of judgments as resting exclusively on their merits as sources of technical knowledge. By contrast, the second model acknowledges room for evaluative judgment, but construes this as a matter of specifying given policy ends. The paper argues that these models fail to capture how agency judgments should be governed by standards beyond both empirical science and ordinary politics. The proposal is to view the standards as flowing from the principle of reciprocity, familiar from public reason theory. The model advocated here highlights how responsiveness to policy ends is structured by a mandate and how fidelity to mandate requires ‘political literacy’, which is a distinct mode of disciplining evaluative judgments.

• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). Political literacy. The concept and its application to the unelected..
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). The Facts of Agency Accountability.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2018). The Political Literacy of Experts.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Bokanmeldelse: New Contractualism in European Welfare State Policies. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning.  ISSN 0040-716X.  58(3), s 357- 360 . doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2017-03-08
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Conflicting Professional Duties and Blameworthiness.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Detaljstyring av moralfilosofien?. Morgenbladet.  ISSN 0805-3847.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Legitimate Agency Reasoning.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Moral philosophers and virtue: What is wrong with being bad? (Blog).
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Professional ethics in the age of AI: Upgrading to v3.0 (Blog).
• Eriksen, Andreas (2017). Reclaiming Responsibility.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2016). Lykkelig som engasjert i jobben.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2016). Lærerens dedikasjon og rolleforståelse. Bedre Skole.  ISSN 0802-183X.  (2), s 72- 76
• Eriksen, Andreas (2016). Profesjonsroller og lykke.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2016). Taking Roles Seriously. On Professional Duty and Virtue..
• Eriksen, Andreas & Lassen, Kjersti (2016, 02. mars). Derfor er noen lykkeligere på jobb. [Internett].  forskning.no.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2014). A. Eriksen svarer:. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening.  ISSN 0029-2001.  134(8), s 808- 809 . doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.14.0453
• Eriksen, Andreas (2014). Tvilsom begrunnelse for reservasjonsmulighet. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening.  ISSN 0029-2001.  (5) . doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.13.1512
• Eriksen, Andreas (2013, 25. oktober). Om reservasjonsrett. [Radio].  NRK P1 Norgesglasset.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2013). Profesjonsroller og moralsk divergens.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2013). Vi taper offentlig begrunnelse. Vårt land.  ISSN 0805-5424.
• Eriksen, Andreas (2012). The Force of Professional Obligations.

View all works in Cristin