---
title: Accountability Sink
summary: "A structural feature of organisations in which the consequences of a decision are absorbed or obscured so that no individual can be held responsible for the outcome."
---

An **accountability sink** is a structural feature of organisations — and especially of large bureaucracies — in which the chain between a decision and its consequences is broken in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to be held responsible. The concept was developed by Dan Davies in *The Unaccountability Machine* (2024).

## The mechanism

The classic pattern: a senior executive makes a decision that optimises a metric visible to them (cost per room, throughput, margin). The decision propagates through layers of management and process until it manifests as a degraded experience for a customer, citizen, or employee. The person at the point of impact — a clerk, a call-centre agent, a front-line worker — has no authority to fix the underlying problem and no channel to communicate the consequence back to whoever caused it. The decision-maker never sees the outcome. The accountability is, in Davies' term, *sunk*.

The voucher is the canonical symbol of an accountability sink: a token gesture offered in place of the thing you actually need, by someone who cannot give you what you need, on behalf of someone who will never know you needed it.

## Why it matters for democratic design

Accountability sinks are not just a corporate phenomenon. They are endemic to large public institutions:

- A policy is set centrally; frontline workers implement it; citizens experience the consequences; the consequences are never aggregated back to the policymakers who set the policy.
- A regulatory agency is created to hold industry accountable; the agency's own accountability mechanisms are weak; the regulator becomes an accountability sink for public frustration with the industry.
- An elected representative votes on legislation drafted by staff, advised by consultants, lobbied by industry — the accountability chain is long enough that no clear responsibility attaches to any link.

This is one reason why structural reforms to democracy — citizens' assemblies, participatory budgeting, deliberative panels — often focus on *shortening the chain* between decision and consequence: putting the people who will live with an outcome closer to the decision itself.

## Relation to transparency and oversight

Accountability sinks persist partly because they are invisible. Transparency mechanisms (open data, freedom of information, published rationale for decisions) make the chain visible. Integrity commissions and parliamentary oversight committees exist to force consequences back up the chain. Citizens' assemblies and sortition-based panels can be understood partly as anti-sink mechanisms: they place ordinary people — who will experience consequences — inside the decision-making process rather than outside it.

## Source

- Davies, Dan. *The Unaccountability Machine: Why Big Systems Make Such a Mess of Everything*. Profile Books, 2024.


## See also

- [Citizens' Assembly](citizens-assembly.md)
- [Sortition](sortition.md)
- [Radical Transparency](radical-transparency.md)
- [Cognitive Division of Labour](cognitive-division-of-labour.md)
- [Trust, a concept analysis (DOD, 2019)](../../blog/posts/2019-12-11-podcast.md) — the "feedback loop" discussion: *who is influenced is not who is influencing it*, and how cooperative ownership closes the loop
