Exploring the challenges and barriers to implementing public auditor recommendations in Ghana’s public sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the multifaceted challenges and barriers to implementing public auditor recommendations in Ghana’s public sector over an eighteen months period, aiming to enhance governance and accountability. Utilizing a qualitative research approach, the study involved semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including officials from the Ghana Audit Service, government ministries, and civil society organizations. The findings reveal a complex interplay of organizational, political, and attitudinal factors that impede effective implementation. Key challenges identified include the lack of clear implementation plans, insufficient resources, weak political commitment, and a pervasive culture of mistrust towards audit recommendations. The research underscores the necessity for a comprehensive and holistic approach to address these barriers, advocating for strengthened political leadership, enhanced accountability mechanisms, and improved stakeholder coordination. Additionally, fostering a sense of ownership and buy-in among implementation stakeholders is crucial for successful reform. The study contributes valuable insights into the systemic issues affecting public sector governance in Ghana and offers practical recommendations for overcoming the identified challenges, ultimately aiming to empower citizens and enhance governmental accountability. By addressing these barriers, the research highlights the potential for transformative change in the governance landscape of Ghana’s public sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".