The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Open accessAbstract
Empirical evidence of tangible impacts of social accountability initiatives is mixed. This meta-analysis reinterprets evaluations through a new lens: the distinction between tactical and strategic approaches to the promotion of citizen voice to contribute to improved public sector performance. Field experiments study bounded, tactical interventions based on optimistic assumptions about the power of information alone, both to motivate collective action and to influence the state. Enabling environments for collective action combined with bolstered state capacity to respond to citizen voice are more promising. Sandwich strategies can help ‘voice’ and ‘teeth’ to become mutually empowering, through state–society synergy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-6408 · Cited by 14,307
Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services
Lipsky, M. (1981) · Michigan Law Review · doi:10.2307/1288305 · Cited by 8,981
Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics
Sartori, G. (1970) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1958356 · Cited by 3,318
Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development
Ostrom, E. (1996) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x · Cited by 2,637
Democracy, Accountability, and Representation
(1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175104 · Cited by 1,796
Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia
Olken, B. A. (2007) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/517935 · Cited by 1,593
Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services
Wise, A. E., & Lipsky, M. (1981) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.2307/1164030 · Cited by 1,576
World Development Report 2004 : making services work for poor people
Pritchett, L. H., Gauthier, B., Devarajan, S., Filmer, D. P., Commins, S. K., Hammer, J. S., Shah, S., Soucat, A. L. B., & Aḥmad, J. (2003) · Cited by 1,517
O'Donnell, G. (1993) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(93)90048-e · Cited by 1,461
Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy
Evans, P. (1996) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(96)00021-6 · Cited by 1,330
Cited by
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives
Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.12017 · Cited by 339
Sacks, E., Morrow, M., Story, W. T., Shelley, K. D., Shanklin, D., Rahimtoola, M., Rosales, A., Ibe, O., & Sarriot, E. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001384 · Cited by 203
Lights on the shadows of public procurement: Transparency as an antidote to corruption
Bauhr, M., Czibik, Á., de Fine Licht, J., & Fazekas, M. (2020) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12432 · Cited by 131
Digital citizen empowerment: a systematic literature review of theories and development models
Sharma, S., Kar, A. K., Gupta, M. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Janssen, M. (2022) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2022.2046533 · Cited by 90
Brummel, L. (2021) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399720988529 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Fox, J. A.
- Venue
- World Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 72
- Pages
- 346-361
- ISSN
- 0305-750X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964015953
- Cited by
- 803
- References
- 107
- FWCI
- 139.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011
- The paper
- Fox, J. A. (2015). Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.