# **_Indicators_**

The exploration of accountability and its effects on service delivery have relied on qualitative methods in many cases to articulate results chains that have been achieved in those specific contexts. Examples of indicators and approaches for assessing accountability have included the following:

- **_Accountability_** achieved (and strengthened) was assessed by DISHA through a review of government budget data errors and the number of timely errata statements issues (for accuracy of the budget) and by tracing the process of expenditure tracking wherein DISHA requests information on the progress of specific allocations and contacts Panchayats to find out if the funds were disbursed for the relevant purposes. This laborintensive expenditure tracking allowed DISHA to tally and report on “under-spends” committed by the government over time (Malajovich and Robinson 2006).

- **_Quality of services_** was measured according to citizen assessments. Bjorkman and Svensson (2009) conducted a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring of public primary health care providers in Uganda. The experiment covered 50 communities in nine districts. NGOs facilitated village and staff meetings in which members of the communities discussed baseline information on the status of health service delivery relative to other providers and the government standard. Community members were also encouraged to develop a plan identifying key problems and steps the providers should take to improve health service provision. The primary objective of the intervention was to initiate a process of community-based monitoring that was then up to the community to sustain and lead. Treatment practices, including immunization of children, waiting time, examination procedures, and absenteeism, improved significantly in the treatment communities.

# **_3.2 The effects of accountability for good governance and institutional quality_**

**Accountability can help to curb corruption** . The UDN and DISHA examples help to demonstrate how community monitoring mechanisms make it more difficult for officials to divert budget resources for undesignated purposes. This is a common finding in the literature in terms of the value of holding stakeholders engaged in the budget process accountable. A range of mechanisms such as community scorecards, social audits, and various complaint mechanisms have been used effectively to ensure better that budgets are allocated and implemented as planned (Deininger and Mpuga 2005, Sing and Vutukuru 2020, Caseley 2003).

**Social accountability can promote good governance.** The interplay between transparency, accountability, and participation surfaces when citizens gain access to information that increases their disillusionment with the quality of governance and “moves them beyond electoral participation” (Gaventa and McGee 2013). Malena et al (2004) argue that social accountability mechanisms (e.g. mass mobilization, use of the courts, etc.) “Allow ordinary citizens to access information, voice their needs, and demand accountability between elections.” This “more informed, organized and systematic manner” of engaging bureaucrats increases the “chances of effective positive change” (p.5).

10