Assessing Formal Independence of Data Protection Authorities in a Comparative Perspective

  • Philip Schütz
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 375)


Data protection authorities (DPAs) represent one of the key actors, not only when it comes to the execution of privacy and data protection policies, but also in terms of awareness raising, consultancy and networking. Since they comprise the spearhead of regulators in the field of privacy and data protection regulation, their independence from the private as well as political domain becomes of the utmost importance. However, independence turns out to be a multifaceted concept. That is why this contribution discusses ways of assessing DPAs’ independence, drawing on research about independent regulatory agencies (IRAs). Three country case studies are finally presented.


Data Protection Supervisory Authority Complete Independence Inspector General Data Protection Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Majone, G.: The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics 17, 77–101 (1994), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Majone, G.: Regulating Europe. Routledge, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Majone, G.: From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy 17, 139–167 (1997), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, C.J., Raab, C.D.: The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective, 2nd and updated edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hood, C.: Regulation inside government: Waste watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilardi, F.: Policy credibility and delegation to independent regulatory agencies: A comparative empirical analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 9, 873–893 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hooghe, L., Marks, G.: Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caporaso, J.A.: The European Union and forms of state: Westphalian, regulatory or post modern? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 34, 29–52 (1996), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eberlein, B., Grande, E.: Beyond delegation: transnational regulatory regimes and the EU regulatory state. Journal of European Public Policy 12, 89–112 (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilks, S., Bartle, I.: The unanticipated consequences of creating independent competition agencies. West European Politics 25, 148–172 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quintyn, M.: Independent agencies: More than a cheap copy of independent central banks? Constitutional Political Economy 20, 267–295 (2009), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thatcher, M.: Regulation after delegation: Independent regulatory agencies in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 9, 954–972 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilardi, F.: The institutional foundations of regulatory capitalism: The diffusion of independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598, 84–101 (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cukierman, A., Web, S.B., Neyapti, B.: Measuring the independence of central banks and its effect on policy outcomes. The World Bank Economic Review 6, 353–398 (1992), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanretty, C., Koop, C.: Measuring the formal independence of regulatory agencies. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–19 (2011),
  16. 16.
    Maggetti, M.: De facto independence after delegation: A fuzzy-set analysis. Regulation & Governance, 271–294 (2007),
  17. 17.
    Gilardi, F., Maggetti, M.: The independence of regulatory authorities. In: Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (forthcoming) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanretty, C.: Explaining the de facto independence of public broadcasters. British Journal of Political Science 40, 75–89 (2009), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayo, B., Voigt, S.: Explaining de facto judicial independence. International Review of Law and Economics 27, 269–290 (2007), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gutwirth, S.: Privacy and the information age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European Communities L 281, 31–50 (1995),
  22. 22.
    Hustinx, P.: The role of data protection authorities. In: Gutwirth, S., Poullet, Y., Hert, P., Terwangne, C., Nouwt, S. (eds.) Reinventing Data Protection?, pp. 131–137. Springer, Dodrecht (2009), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simitis, S.: From the market to the polis: The EU Directive on the protection of personal data. Iowa Law Review 80, 445–469 (1994), Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castles, F.: Families of nations: Patterns of public policy in Western democracies. Dartmouth, Aldershot Hants England; Brookfield Vt. USA (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Castles, F.: Comparative public policy: Patterns of post-war transformation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hessian Data Protection Act, Hesse (Germany) (1970),
  27. 27.
    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 march 2010. European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany. Failure of a Member State to Fulfil Obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Movement of Such Data - Article 28(1) - National Supervisory Authorities - Independence - Administrative Scrutiny of Those Authorities. Case c-518/07 (2010),
  28. 28.
    Dammann, U.: Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. In: Simitis, S. (ed.) Bundesdatenschutzgesetz - Kommentar, 7th edn., Nomos, Baden-Baden (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Budget of the Federal Ministry of the Interior 2011, Germany (2011),
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Act on the Protection on Personal Data, Poland, 2004 (1997),
  32. 32.
    Budget of the Bureau of the Inspector General for personal data protection 2009, Poland (2009),
  33. 33.
    The statutes of the Bureau of the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection, Poland (2006),
  34. 34.
    Appendix to the Regulation no. 29/2007 by the Inspector General for the Protection of Personal Data - Organisational regulations of the Bureau of the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection, Poland (2007),
  35. 35.
    Bennett, C.: Regulating privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1992)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Act on supervision of certain crime-fighting activities, Sweden (2007:980) (2007),
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Brochure of the Data Inspection Board: What on earth does the Data Inspection Board do?: A portrait of the swedish Data Inspection Board,
  39. 39.
    Government Decision for the Budget 2011 of the Data Inspection Board, I:59, Ministry of Justice, Sweden (2010),
  40. 40.
    Stewart, B.: A comparative survey of data protection authorities - Part 1: Form and structure. Privacy Law and Policy Reporter 11 (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Swedish Statute Book - Governments regualtions, SFS 2007:515, Sweden (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Response to an information request, Data Inspection Board (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Flaherty, D.: Protecting privacy in surveillance societies: The federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and United States. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hilland (1989)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brochure of the MInistry of Justice: Personal Data Protection - Information on the Personal Data Act, Ministry of Justice, Sweden (2006),
  46. 46.
    Swedish Statute Book - Regulation with instructions for the Data Inspection Board, SFS 2007:975, Sweden (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Staff Representative Ordinance, 1987:1101, Sweden (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Schütz
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation ResearchKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations