Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reveals gaps in accountability for policy choices, suggesting improvements for governance effectiveness.
Despite accountability’s centrality to good governance , policymakers such as senior government officials are rarely held responsible for the quality of and reasoning behind their policy choices. Conventional accountability mechanisms are mostly fixated on procedural compliance , without sufficiently attending to whether policies are well-designed , evidence-based , or achieve intended outcomes. This paper argues that “policy choice accountability”—requiring policymakers to justify decisions , demonstrate evidence use , and accept responsibility for results—represents a critical missing dimension in governance systems. Through illustrative case examples , including education transformation in Ceará , Brazil , we show how this dimension of accountability can be strengthened through our three-pillar framework. Addressing this gap is essential for confronting complex policy challenges effectively across diverse contexts. The paper contributes to accountability theory by establishing policy choice as a distinct dimension requiring specific oversight mechanisms beyond traditional administrative and political accountability. For practice , it proposes concrete threshold conditions for application that can enhance policy effectiveness and democratic governance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: