Evaluating Theories of Governance in Explaining Accountability Failures in Developing Countries: An Adaptive Integrated Governance Accountability Framework

Abstract

Governance and accountability are fundamental to sustainable development, institutional legitimacy, and effective public administration. Despite extensive governance reforms across developing countries, accountability failures continue to impede service delivery, weaken public trust, and constrain socio-economic development. Existing governance scholarship provides diverse theoretical explanations for these failures, yet individual theories often focus on specific dimensions while overlooking the complexity of governance systems. This paper critically reviews and synthesises major governance theories, including Institutionalism, Principal-Agent Theory, Public Choice Theory, Network Governance, Collaborative Governance, Stewardship Theory, New Public Management, Political Economy Theory, and State Capacity Theory. The analysis demonstrates that accountability failures arise from the interaction of institutional weaknesses, political incentives, administrative capacity constraints, fragmented governance networks, and informal institutions rather than from a single causal factor. To address this theoretical fragmentation, the paper proposes the Adaptive Integrated Governance Accountability Framework (AIGAF), which integrates institutional resilience, incentive-compatible accountability, ethical leadership, collaborative governance, political commitment, and adaptive state capacity into a unified conceptual model. The paper argues that this integrative framework provides a more comprehensive basis for understanding accountability failures and offers practical insights for designing governance reforms that are responsive to the institutional and political realities of developing countries.