While designing an intervention around social accountability, it is useful to think about six parameters (World Bank):

Incentive Structure

Punishment Versus Reward Based Mechanisms: Ideally social accountability initiatives should offer rewards for accountable behavior (e.g. public recognition, positive feedback, bonuses or promotion based on client assessment) as well as the prospect of punishment or sanctions (e.g. public shaming, legal actions, demotion) for unaccountable behavior. Citizens may have a variety of (both formal and informal) rewards and sanctions at their disposal and these should be fully and carefully explored in the design of social accountability interventions. Experience shows that a combination of both incentives and sanctions are often most effective in achieving enhanced social accountability.

Accountability for What

Rule following versus Performance-based mechanisms: A Rule following/ Process based mechanism refers to a social accountability mechanism geared towards rule following looks at whether the government and its various agencies follow their own rules for the various activities performed by them.  On the other side, focus of a Performance based mechanism is on the results or the performance of the government machinery in delivering tangible outputs. Society can play an important role in evaluating the performance or “quality” of government services. Given this scenario, the best pro accountability mechanisms are those which strikes a proper balance between the process and performance based approaches

Level of Institutionalization

While ad hoc or one-off social accountability initiatives can make a difference, experience shows that impact is greatest and most sustainable when social accountability mechanisms are “institutionalized” – in other words, embedded within and systematically implemented by a civil society, state or “hybrid” institution. According to Fox (2000), “civil society demands for state accountability matter most when they empower the state’s own checks and balances.” Social accountability mechanisms to be effective on the long run need to be institutionalized and linked to existing governance structures and service delivery systems.

Level of Involvement

In addition to being under-institutionalized, most pro-accountability initiatives grounded in civic engagement tend to be “under-involved” or too “externalist. Nevertheless, there is a limit to the extent to which citizens as agents of accountability can be invited into the core of the state. The closer societal actors get to the core of the state the more their behavior is usually regulated. Since a fully ‘externalist’ or ‘internalist’ approach is not compatible with the concept of social accountability a fine balance needs to be struck in the extent to which the citizens and civil society organisations get closer to the core of the state.

Inclusiveness of Participation

Reaching out to the marginalized, giving voice to the unheard and empowering the weak all involve swimming against the overpowering currents of the mainstream. By providing critical information on rights and entitlements and introducing mechanisms that enhance citizen voice and influence vis-à-vis government, social accountability initiatives serve to enhance both of these key determinants of empowerment.

Branches of Government

Since the executive manages the vast majority of resources and is one step removed from the democratic process it is most often the central target for pro-accountability reform. But, there is an equally important need to reform the legislative and the judicial branches.