IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ecdecc/doi10.1086-703099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Better-Performing Nongovernmental Organizations Report More Accurately? Evidence from Financial Accounts in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Canh Thien Dang
  • Ronelle Burger
  • Trudy Owens

Abstract

We use Benford’s Law to investigate inaccurate financial reports of a representative sample of Ugandan nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). We find that 25% of the sample provided information that did not conform to the Benford distribution, suggesting potential misreporting. NGOs with better ratings from their beneficiaries are more likely to submit credible information. This contradicts the belief that upward accountability demands crowd out serving the client community. The decision to withhold requested information is unrelated to the decision to report inaccurately, with the latter attributed to limited capacity and skills. Policies should provide larger roles for beneficiary-based assessments and increased support for bookkeeping activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Canh Thien Dang & Ronelle Burger & Trudy Owens, 2021. "Do Better-Performing Nongovernmental Organizations Report More Accurately? Evidence from Financial Accounts in Uganda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(2), pages 789-828.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/703099
    DOI: 10.1086/703099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/703099
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/703099
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/703099?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/703099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/EDCC .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.