What Is an Ombudsperson? Global Diffusion, International Standardization, and Institutional Diversification
| Author | Colin J Bennett,Norman J Dolan |
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807972 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807972
Political Studies Review
2019, Vol. 17(4) 370 –390
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929918807972
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
What Is an Ombudsperson?
Global Diffusion, International
Standardization, and
Institutional Diversification
Norman J Dolan1 and Colin J Bennett2
Abstract
The global diffusion of administrative institutions such as the Ombudsperson office provides
clues into wider questions of democratic development. Explanations of institutional diffusion
tend to assume, however, that the essential character of the institution remains relatively stable.
While the office of the Ombudsperson has become a potent symbol of administrative fairness
and independence in defense of the individual against the powerful public agency or corporation,
we show that the essential identity of this office has changed over time. As the number of
agencies calling themselves ombudsmen has proliferated, the number of functions performed
have diversified, shaping public perceptions and expectations. The article describes this pattern
of institutional diversification into a widespread network of classical, executive, organizational,
and advocacy ombudspersons. The institutional proliferation has led to processes of institutional
standardization, and an increasing motivation to defend the ombudsman “brand” to justify its
status and distinguish its place within different political and administrative systems.
Keywords
Ombudsman, administrative fairness, maladministration, administrative oversight, dispute
resolution, global diffusion
Accepted: 28 September 2018
Introduction
As the number of ombudsman agencies has proliferated over recent decades, so its overall
profile has diversified and fragmented into a complex and varied network of classical,
executive, organizational, and advocacy ombudspersons performing a huge variety of
functions. This article depicts and tries to understand the pattern of institutional diffusion,
documenting the range of functions currently performed by ombudsperson offices and
1School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
2Department of Political Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Corresponding author:
Norman J Dolan, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Email: njdolan@uvic.ca
807972PSW0010.1177/1478929918807972Political Studies ReviewDolan and Bennett
research-article2018
Article
Dolan and Bennett 371
describing the obvious diversification. International, supranational, and national ombuds-
man associations have provided valuable arenas for the sharing of ideas and experiences,
and for the communication of principles and standards of best practices. We review these
various efforts at institutional definition and standardization. There is an understandable
desire to stake out a distinctive institutional profile that contrasts with other agencies such
as courts, tribunals, commissioners, and so on.
However, there is also an obvious disconnect between the theory of what an ombuds-
man should be and the comparative evidence of institutional practice. This has created
some tensions within the community and an increasing motivation to defend the ombuds-
man “brand” by national and international offices, as well as by the academic community
that studies them. The brand has become a potent symbol of administrative fairness and
independence. Ironically, as the brand has spread, the original meaning and function of
the institution has been distorted, and it has become more diverse in its meaning and
application.
How, and in what respects, different political and administrative institutions spread
around the world can provide clues to wider questions of democratic development, and
allow insightful comparisons across space and time. The institution of the ombudsperson
provides an especially interesting example of international institutional diffusion. We
organize this article according to some discernible stages of the international spread of
ombudsperson offices around democratic states: institutional diversification and func-
tional proliferation, international lesson-drawing, international standardization of guid-
ance, and brand defense. Our analysis is conducted at an international level, and draws
upon examples from ombudsman offices and associations representing supranational,
international, and national jurisdictions. It is based entirely on documentary evidence,
particularly on the guidelines and standards promulgated by the selected ombudsman
associations.
Theoretical Approaches to Institutional Diffusion
There is a rich literature in political science and public administration on how ideas, poli-
cies, and institutions spread from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often termed “diffusion
analysis,” this tradition dates back at least as far as the 1960s (Rogers, 1962). The succes-
sive pattern of the adoption of innovations provides useful insights into broader trajecto-
ries of political and economic development. And comparative analysis can also produce
generalizations about those jurisdictions that tend to be the innovators, in contrast with
those that more likely will follow.
One family of explanations centers on context, where the adoption of an institution is
hypothesized to be the outcome of similar stages of socio-economic or technological
development. Thus, certain institutions follow logically from the conditions and problems
produced by political and economic modernization. This approach assumes a relative
independence of cases and that the adoption of an institution is explicable according to
largely domestic factors. These contextual explanations are common in the literature on
the spread of the welfare state throughout industrialized states in the first half of the twen-
tieth century (Collier and Messick, 1975).
Another family of explanation focuses on cross-national communication and learn-
ing. Policy choices are always influenced by the actions of other jurisdictions. As global
networked communications have proliferated, so there tends to be a greater emphasis in
the literature on how states draw lessons (Rose, 1993), learn (Hall, 1993), or emulate
To continue reading
Request your trial