The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives in Service Delivery
Open accessAbstract
Transparency and accountability initiatives (TAIs) have emerged as a key strategy for improving public services, but the links between transparency and accountability and their impact on service delivery are often largely assumed. This article reviews several TAIs to assess their impact. It finds evidence suggesting that a range of accountability initiatives have been effective in their immediate goals and have had a strong impact on public services in a few cases, but that overall evidence of impact on the quality and accessibility of services is more mixed.
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
Björkman, M., & Svensson, J. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.735 · Cited by 739
Fighting Corruption to Improve Schooling: Evidence from a Newspaper Campaign in Uganda
Reinikka, R., & Svensson, J. (2005) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.259 · Cited by 719
Widgets or Watchdogs?: Conceptual explorations in social accountability
Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. P. (2012) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.657837 · Cited by 237
Self-citation
Cited by
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Fox, J. A. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · Cited by 803
Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences
Anderson, C. (2023) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.12687 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Joshi, A.
- Venue
- Development Policy Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- s1
- ISSN
- 0950-6764 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7679
- OpenAlex
- W2146886834
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 77.66
- 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
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.
