Search

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) have gained popularity as an alternative financing method for public services. SIBs promise to have lower risks for public budgets than traditional approaches. However, integrating private finance instruments into established public accountability procedures is notoriously difficult. Through a systematic review of the empirical research on implemented SIBs, this article examines those public accountability concerns. The results indicate that narratives of a new, more horizontal way of holding organisations accountable should not be accepted too easily. Risks are identified in the literature in four public accountability dimensions: transparency, controllability, responsiveness, and liability. Accountability safeguards will need to centre on establishing detailed procedures that precisely delineate the role of each actor, building effective platforms for both gathering and sharing information, and adequately transferring risks. At the same time, these safeguards could come at the cost of the attractiveness of the instrument for investors, creating a catch‐22 in which making the SIB a sustainable model of service delivery at the same time may undermine its viability. Points for practitioners: To address public accountability risks, practitioners can focus on establishing procedures that clearly define the roles of each actor involved in the SIB, creating effective platforms for gathering and sharing information between partners and making sure that financial risks are adequately transferred to private partners.At the same time, implementing safeguards for public accountability may prove challenging, as it increases transaction costs and undermines the attractiveness of SIBs for all actors.Administrations should use SIBs sparingly and transition from multiplex SIBs to two‐party contracts once programmes prove effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]