IMPLEMENTATION ACCOUNTABILITY, REPORTING ROUTINES, AND SOCIAL TRUST IN LOCAL SERVICE DELIVERY

Abstract

Public policy is often judged at delivery points, community forums, and the routine administrative work that keeps programmes running. In capacity‑constrained settings, accountability can become a paradox: documentation and reporting strengthen procedural control, while trust remains fragile when verification is costly. This study explains how implementation accountability routines shape social trust and perceived legitimacy in a performance‑oriented local service programme linked to minimum service standards. We use a qualitative explanatory case study. Data combine 38 semi‑structured interviews across key local actors and programme documents. Using an abductive thematic approach, we trace mechanism pathways connecting accountability routines, verification constraints, and citizen perceptions. We find (i) a persistent trust deficit tied to information asymmetry and principal–agent vulnerabilities; (ii) extensive accountability work through audit trails, bank‑based disbursement, compulsory bookkeeping, and routine reporting, including downward accountability within groups; and (iii) performance accountability through outcome reporting alongside risks of paper compliance and indicator‑driven distortion under limited field verification. We contribute a mechanism‑based explanation of when procedural accountability becomes socially recognised legitimacy and when it does not, and we derive design implications for accountability under high transaction costs, including capacity support, usable citizen‑facing transparency, and risk‑based verification. Keywords: implementation accountability; reporting routines; social trust; minimum service standards; risk-based verification.

Access to Document

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Open Access Version Available

Fingerprint