\section{Introduction}
There is a widespread perception that political decision makers are ``timid'' during policy-making: they often shy away from the  policies that are good for the society but bad for their future careers (e.g. \cite{CHS01,MT04,Fox07}). The key to controlling this behavior is removing their accountability, that is, they shall not be responsible politically for unfavorable policy consequences that arise from the ex ante appropriate policy decisions\footnote{\cite{MT04} suggest that technical decisions should be left to unaccountable officials;  \cite{Prat05}, \cite{FVW12}, and \cite{Ash2012} suggest that backing away from transparency helps because the incumbent cannot be judged on unobserved actions.}. Yet in many complex reform policy-making where the quality of implementation matters, simply joining or splitting one's policy and office-holding motives is not enough.  The public faces excessive policy risks if political decision makers are insufficiently motivated at the implementation stage.

The following example illustrates this point. Dominic Cummings, a chief figure in the Brexit campaign and a former senior advisor of Boris Johnson, used to have enormous influence on the British civil servants. To Cummings, supporting the Brexit is a matter of loyalty rather than policy-making for civil servants. When Cummings just assumed his position as Johnson's advisor, anecdotes\footnote{``How Dominic Cummings took control in Boris Johnson’s first days as Prime Minister''. {\it BuzzfeedNews}. 27 July 2019.} suggest that he cued the department aides to support the no-deal Brexit in return for extra money from the Treasury; to department aides, it is ``do or die''. In January 2021, after stepping down from the Downing Street for months, Cummings continued his propaganda. He posted on the social media ``Should I name and shame the senior officials who persistently present a disastrously incorrect picture to ministers?'' and ``Many will be pleased to know this is about ideologues with EU stars in their eyes, not the virus.''\footnote{``Dominic Cummings threatens to expose Remainer civil servants who tried to sabotage Brexit'', {\it Express}, 6 January 2021.}

Not all civil servants shared Cummings's enthusiasm about Brexit. In fact, many were confused, depressed, and/or annoyed at implementing the plan. After long being trapped in the black hole of Brexit, a civil servant complained to {\it The Guardian}: ``Heaven help us if no deal (Brexit) actually happens.''\footnote{``Many civil servants are depressed – including me. Brexit will do that to you.'', {\it The Guardian}, 26 November 2019. } Jill Rutter, a former treaury mandarin, put straightforwardly: ``Brexit is an article of faith, rather than a pragmatic choice.''\footnote{``The civil service must speak truth to Boris (and his Cabinet)''. {\it The Institute for Government}. 25 July 2019.} Others in the Whitehall question the practicability of Cummings's rush and radical changes prior to the Brexit. Dave Penman, the head of the FDA union, pinpointed the source of (de)motivation in reform implementation:`` There's a huge difference between bringing in new ideas or radical agendas and implementing untested ideologies which, if they go wrong, will impact upon the delivery of public services to millions of citizens.''\footnote{``Dominic  Cummings  role  provokes  alarm  inside  civil  service''. {\it The Guardian},    July 25 2019.}
Indeed, Cummings shall be happy to see these unelected bureaucrats pander to support the Brexit. But even a Brexit-zealot like him faces an incentive problem: how to motivate its implementation?

This paper brings the motivation problem to a pandering context, focusing on the right kind of accountability within the delegated reform decisions. The delegates' office and policy motives are imperfectly aligned; hence, to what extent the public might fine-tune these motives  determines the quality of the reform decision-making. The only policy instrument that public can harness is the delegates' accountability, that is, they shall be removed from office unless their reform decision-making admit certain ``nice'' features.  Then the question becomes: what are the nice features that would align the delegates' policy and office-holding motives? Can the delegates be credibly rewarded/punished electorally after the policy-making?  And finally, what kind of accountability  would  best serve the policy interest for the public?

I analyze these questions with a formal model of reform decision-making. There is a careerist agent (he) carrying out the reform decisions and its implementation on behalf of a principal (she). The agent must choose between the safe status quo policy and a risky policy reform. To highlight the motivation issue in a clear fashion, I follow \cite{Hirsch2016} and assume that good policy choice and good implementation are complementary to a successful reform. As a policy expert, the agent is assumed to be better informed than the principal about the underlying state that dictates whether the reform might be successful. However, the agent is not a perfect delegate. On the one hand, he does not necessarily share the principal's policy preference. A congruent agent prefers a successful reform to the status quo to a failed reform just as the principal; a noncongruent (conservative) agent prefers the status quo no matter what. On the other hand, the agent places some weight on retention; the office benefit incentivizes him to make policy to signal congruence to the principal. Taken together, career concerns might distort the agent's reform decision-making in a way that damages the principal's policy interest. For example, he may initiate a reform during bad times, or failing to implement a good reform with sufficient efforts.

My main analysis concerns to which extent the principal may and should hold the agent accountable. Since the agent cannot be judged on things that the principal does not observe, I assume that the principal employ information policies as devices to establish the limits of accountability. Ranging from the least to the most transparent environments, the principal may observe 1) the policy choice, 2) the policy choice and its outcome, and 3) the policy choice, implementation effort, and its outcome. Roughly, they classify the policy-making environments according to whether the agent might answer for its decision, implementation, and outcomes.  That said, the principal does not necessarily use all data from policy-making to make the retention decision. I study how the principal and the agent form mutually-correct guesses on the other's strategy, and characterize the environment that best serves the principal's policy interest.

{\bf Main results.} I show that the right kind of accountability must involve the principal observing the policy outcome; beyond that, the principal does not necessarily benefit from knowing more about the reform decision-making.

 Knowing the policy outcome matters because it alters the burden of proof (e.g. \cite{Ash2012}): when the public is unlikely to learn about the appropriateness of a policy, the agent proves loyalty unless he refuses to reform. With the policy outcome going public, the agent shows disloyalty unless he does the reform right. Assuming in both situations the agent panders to reform, he exerts more efforts in the latter case because he must answer for the reform decision and outcomes. In fact, a retention rule pivotal on reform outcomes provides a powerful incentive -- the agent would internalize the office benefit into his implementation effort.
Thus, an environment with the policy outcome observable fine-tunes the agent's policy and office motives in a context in which pandering is {\it inevitable}.

Can the principal improve by gleaning information about the reform implementation before evaluating the agent? We have to caution that the principal might not utilize all data at hand for the retention decision. The key barrier is that, the accountability for the reform implementation and outcomes do not always get along. More often, the reform decision together with additional cues about its implementation enables the principal to perfectly screen the agent. For example, if holding the office or political promotion comes at price of an undesirable reform decision plus burdensome
midterm reviews from above, a noncongruent agent would be reluctant to go after it at the beginning.  From the principal's perspective, as long as the agent is willing to pay for the increased cost of congruence, he does not have to answer for the policy consequences.

My paper is not the first to recognize the perverse effect of transparency, but it uncovers a novel mechanism embedded in complex policy-making problems. It is often argued that transparency could be bad for policy-making when the correct action leads to adverse inference about the decision maker's competence or congruence; making the action unobservable may cure the issue by aligning the decision maker's policy and office motives (e.g. \cite{Prat05,Fox07,FVW12}). When the policy-making involves more than a policy choice, the decision maker's motivation at the implementation stage is endogenous to how the public links his future to various potential policy consequences. This often makes it impossible to completely aligning one's conflicting motives.

Building on these observations, I return to positive question -- the principal-optimal information policies -- by comparing the agent's incentives underlying two good accountability. To fix ideas, let's erase the selection issue and suppose that the delegate is ``quite'' congruent; driven by career concerns, this agent always panders to reform to avoid being mistaken as the ``noncongruent'' type.
When does he work harder? If his future career is tied to the reform consequences, then the agent works to pursue its success; if instead his future career is tied to acting congruently, then he works to separate from the noncongruent types. Generally, these two motivations differ in magnitude. Depending on the exact parameter values, the principal may prefer either accountability.

These results have practical implications for how the public should motivate the delegated reform policy-making. Crucially, more transparency does not necessarily translate into more or less  accountability; instead, it often induces a {\it different} kind of accountability that is not necessarily better or worse. Through comparative static analysis, I discuss the level of transparency that induces right kind of accountability across different environments. I find that the principal-optimal level of transparency is not necessarily monotone with respect to the delegates' office motive. This novel result highlights the subtle motivation effect of career concerns as opposed to creating a straightforward pandering incentive.

\section{Model}
{\bf Setup}. Consider a model of policy-making in which an agent (he) carries out a reform decision and its implementation on behalf of a principal (she). There are two possible policies, a risky reform ($r$) and a safe status quo ($q$). By risky, I mean that the reform outcome could be a success or a failure; the status quo outcome is deterministic. The principal's utility $v$ from these outcomes are $1$, $d$, and $0$, with $d\in (0,1)$. In other words, she prefers a successful reform to the status quo to a failed reform.

Following \cite{Hirsch2016}, I suppose that
``choosing well'' and ``implementing well'' are both essential elements to a successful reform. ``Choosing well'' means that a reform happens when the underlying state $\omega$ calls for it. Specifically, the reform could be good ($\omega=G$) or bad ($\omega=B$) in nature, with the common prior $P(\omega=G)=\phi\in (0,1)$. A bad reform always fails; a good reform may succeed. To formalize ``implementing well matters'', I suppose that a good reform succeeds with a probability equal to the implementation effort $e\in [0,1]$. The status quo policy induces a sure outcome that does not vary with the implementation effort.

While nobody observes the state $\omega$ perfectly, the agent as a policy expert knows it more than the principal. He receives a signal
$s\in\{g,b\}$ of accuracy $p\geq \frac{1}{2}$ about $\omega$ i.e. $P(s=g|\omega=G)=P(s=b|\omega=B)=p$.

The agent is an imperfect delegate. On the one hand, his policy interest may differ from the principal's. With probability $\pi$ he is ``congruent''; that is, he shares the principal's policy preference, evaluating a successful reform at $1$, the status quo at $d$, and the failed reform at $0$. With probability $1-\pi$ he is ``noncongruent''; he is captured by special interest groups and averts any policy change (see also \cite{Fox07}). For such a politically conservative agent, the policy utility $v_n$  is $d$ for the status quo and $0$ for any reform outcome. Denote the agent's type space $T:=\{c,n\}$ where $t=c$ means congruent and $t=n$ means noncongruent.

On the other hand, unlike the principal, the agent cares about the implementation cost and the office. A reform implementation effort $e$ costs the agent $\frac{e^2}{2\lambda}$. Here $\lambda$ parameterizes the agent's cost sensitivity: a larger $\lambda$ means that the agent bears a lower cost of implementation. The agent derives a utility $R>0$ from being in office after the reform policy-making.

The principal disciplines the agent's behavior by deciding whether to remove him from office at the end of the day. To do so, she forms the posterior belief $\mu$ that the agent is congruent with all policy-making information $\mathcal{I}$ available; that is, $\mu:=P(t=c|\mathcal{I})$. I suppose that the principal would draw another agent randomly from the same pool after she removes this one. Hence, she retains (removes) this agent if she updates positively (negatively) from the policy-making. Further suppose that ties are broken in the agent's favor. Essentially, this restriction turns the principal's strategy to preparing a tacit contract in the form of  ``a retention set''; that is, the agent shall be retained whenever his policy-making meets a set of implicit standards. For example, a retention set ``$\{\text{successful reform}\}$'' means that the agent shall be  retained as long as he reforms and succeeds. This practice appears in everyday life and is quite common in the delegation literature (e.g. \citet{AV10}).

The principal cares about policy-making and selecting a congruent agent, but her selection motive comes secondary. From the eye of the principal, the agent in-office tomorrow is congruent with probability $Q :=D\mu+(1-D)\pi$, where $D=1$ indicates retention and $D=0$ indicates removal. I suppose that the principal's payoff takes the form $v(\cdot)+MQ$ with $M>0$, and focus on the limiting case $M\downarrow 0$.  This assumption enables us to see clearly how the principal may control agent to further her policy interest; that said, my main result does not at all rest on this knife-edge assumption. In Appendix \ref{Rob} I argue that all conclusions go through as long as the principal's policy motive dominates her selection motive.

Here is the summary of payoff.
The principal's total utility is $v(\cdot )$; a congruent agent's total
utility is $v(\cdot)-\frac{e^{2}}{2\lambda}+R\cdot D$; a
noncongruent agent's total utility is $u_{n}(x,y)=v_{n}(\cdot)-\frac{e^{2}}{2\lambda}+R\cdot D$. \\

{\noindent {\bf Information environment}}. Let's for the salient reality assume that the principal always observes the agent's policy choice. After all, it would be absurd to see the principal retreating completely from the delegated reform decision-making. Depending on whether the principal wishes to hold this agent accountable for the policy implementation and its outcome, I consider three relevant information regimes. From the least to the most transparent environments, I allow the principal to observe 1) only the policy choice, 2) the policy choice and its outcome, and 3) the policy choice, the effort, and the outcome. In the Appendix \ref{Rob}, I argue that the effort is a shorthand for the agent's moral hazard in the reform implementation. Label these environments as ``nontransparent'', ``opaque'', and ``transparent''.

I make two remarks about the completeness of this classification. First, my setup assumes perfect invertibility from the outcome to actions, that is, the principal perfectly knows whether a reform has taken place from any one of the three potential outcomes ``successful reform'', ``failed reform'', and ``status quo''. As a result, my setup does not permit an environment in which the principal knows the outcome but not the policy choice, thus eliminating the possibility that she may be better
off committing not to observe the action \citep{Prat05}. Second, there does exist an information regime in which the principal knows the policy choice and efforts. I shall come back to this regime only if, from an ad hoc standpoint, the agent cannot be accountable for the policy and its implementation in those  information regimes we are about to study. \\

{\noindent {\bf Sequence of moves}}. For each information regime, the game moves as follows: first, Nature picks the random variables $(\omega,s,t)$ according to the distribution. Second, the agent observes $s\in\{g,b\}$. Third, the agent chooses $x\in\{r,q\}$ and effort $e\in[0,1]$. Fourth, Nature determines the outcome of the project; Fifth, the principal decides on whether to retain the agent conditional on observables. Finally, all players' payoff realize.\\

{\noindent{\bf Assumptions}}. Let $\mu_{+}:=P(\omega=G|s=g)=\frac{\phi p}{\phi p+(1-\phi)(1-p)}$
and $\mu_{-}:=P(\omega=G|s=b)=\frac{\phi(1-p)}{\phi(1-p)+(1-\phi)p}$ be the posterior beliefs that the reform is good by nature after one receives a good/bad signal. I make several assumptions. First, the agent's signal $s$ is very informative.  The formal requirement is $\mu_{+}>\sqrt{{\frac{2d}{\lambda}}}>\mu_{-}$\label{US}. Second, the office rent is moderate; that is, $\min\{(1+R)\mu_{-},R\mu_{+}\}>\sqrt{\frac{2d}{\lambda}}>R\mu_{-}$\label{MO}. I also impose $\lambda(1+R)\leq1$ to ensure that $e\in[0,1]$. In the appendix Lemma \ref{Rent}, I show that these parameter restrictions imply $R>2d$. \\

{\noindent {\bf Solution concept}}. The agent chooses an action $a\in \{r,q\}\times [0,1]$ based on his type $t\in \{c,n\}$ and signal $s\in \{g,b\}$. His (mixed) strategy $\sigma(\cdot|t,s)$ specifies a probability distribution over actions $a$ for each type-signal tuple $(t,s)$. The principal decides whether to retain this agent based on her information set $I\in \mathcal{I}$; her (mixed) strategy
is $\sigma_{p}:I\rightarrow [0,1]$. For each information regime, I look for the existence of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE) in which the principal plays a pure retention strategy. The equilibrium condition dictates that no players
admit any profitable deviation from the equilibrium strategy; and, players form beliefs by the Bayes' rule whenever possible.

A preliminary observation is that the game may admit numerous equilibria
supported by ad hoc off-path beliefs. To illustrate, consider the nontransparent regime in which the principal observes only the policy choice. When the office motive outweighs policy considerations, there is a pooling equilibrium in which
both types of agent always choose the status quo; the principal holds the off-path belief that whoever reforms is noncongruent. This equilibrium is nonetheless unsatisfying
-- the congruent agent may make a public speech to convince the principal
that that he is willing to reform when the signal is good.
The principal might indeed buy this argument, because only a congruent
agent may benefit from this kind of action.

To restrict the off-path beliefs,
I apply the universal divinity refinement from \cite{BS82} to the PBEs of this game. Behind this refinement is an intuitive idea: the principal believes that an unexpected action comes from the type that is mostly likely to benefit from it. The refinement gives rises to the notion of ``strong off-path beliefs'' proposed by \cite{FJ11},
\begin{lemma}[Strong off-path beliefs]\label{SOB}
A PBE surviving the universal divinity refinement assigns the following off-path beliefs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if the status quo is off-path, then the
principal believes that whoever chooses it is noncongruent.
\item if the reform is off-path, then the
principal believes that whoever chooses it is congruent.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Appendix \ref{Pre} contains its proof. Call any PBE surviving this refinement an ``equilibrium''.

\section{Comparison of information regimes}\label{EQM}
Below I present the heuristic descriptions of equilibria across different regimes. Formal statements and proofs are relegated to the appendix. Also, it is useful to establish a no-accountability benchmark. This situation is plausible, for example, if the agent is a lame duck, or if the principal completely backs away from transparency.

\begin{Ob}[No accountability]\label{FC}
An unaccountable agent chooses his favorite action. That is, only a congruent agent reforms when the signal is good; the status quo prevails if the signal is bad or the agent is noncongruent.
\end{Ob}
The main takeaway is that, under the model assumptions, only a congruent agent may sometimes want to carry out a reform solely for the sake of policy-making.
\subsection{Nontransparent regime}
When the principal observes nothing but the agent's policy choice, her retention decision is determined by whether this policy signals congruence. In particular, she updates positively from a certain policy if it is more likely to be initiated by a congruent type.

I argue that initiating a reform helps one secure the office. There are two cases: either the reform is off-path, in which case the strong off-path belief assigns probability one to this event that the agent is congruent; or the reform is on path. In the latter case, only a congruent agent may attach nontrivial weights to a reform and sometimes strictly prefers implementing a reform to the status quo policy. This means that the congruent agent must reform at least weakly more often than a noncongruent type  given any retention strategy.
As such, initiating a reform cannot be bad news for congruence.

Provided a moderate office benefit, the only plausible equilibrium in this nontransparent regime involves both types of the agent pooling at the reform policy. To see this, I rule out the remaining possibility that the congruent agent reforms strictly more often on path. According to this strategy, the status quo policy becomes bad news for retention; a career-minded agent would rather deviate by pandering to reform despite it might go against his policy interest.

\begin{Obs}[Accountability for decision]\label{PC}
In the nontransparent regime, there exists a unique equilibrium in pure strategy. In this equilibrium, both types of agent panders to reform without sufficient implementation efforts. The principal always retains the agent on path.
\end{Obs}
The nontransparent regime induces the accountability for decision; that is, the agent shall be retained unless he chooses the ex ante noncongruent policy (status quo). The reform implementation exhibits a lack of motivation because it is either carried out at the wrong time (bad signal) or by the wrong person (noncongruent agent). This is not surprising: by making the reform implementation and outcome unobservable, the nontransparent regime essentially reduces to the classic ``wrong transparency'' environment of \cite{Fox07}. In both models, the quality of policy-making is compromised by the agent's misaligned office and policy motives.

\subsection{Opaque regime}
Suppose in addition to the policy choice, the principal also observes its outcome. This means that she has additional data to evaluate the agent before making the retention decision. But for which policy outcome should this agent be responsible? Should he be punished electorally for not reforming, for failing to reform well, or both?

A critical observation is that, conditional on the initiation of a reform, the principal might not credibly hold an agent accountable to its potential outcomes. In a situation where the principal's retention rule does not vary with the reform outcome, the opaque regime has no bite because only the policy choice matters. Is this uninteresting case plausible? Indeed. As a better-motivated reformer, a congruent agent in general reforms more often and implements better than a noncongruent type. From the principal's perspective, she is sure that more reform successes come from the congruent type. But she cannot determine which type fails more often. When the congruent agent's extra reform attempts more than compensate for his lower failure probability, more failures are attributable to the congruent type, thus rendering a failed reform also good news about congruence.

To eliminate this possibility, I impose an informativeness condition that guarantees
a reform failure to be bad news about congruence. Notate $\gamma=\frac{1-p}{p}$ and $z=\frac{1-\phi}{\phi}$:

\begin{Definition}[Informativeness condition]
 $z-\lambda\frac{1}{1+\gamma z}\leq\gamma[\lambda(1+R)\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+z}-1]$.
\end{Definition}
The informativeness condition derives from the most plausible case that a reform failure {\it could} but does not have to be good news for congruence; that is, a congruent agent always reforms, whereas a noncongruent agent reforms when the signal is good. The condition depends on the signal accuracy $p$, the prior probability of a good state $\phi$, the cost sensitivity $\lambda$ and the office benefit $R$. $p$ and $\phi$ pin down how {\it more often} a congruent type reforms relative to a noncongruent type (i.e. receiving a bad signal). $\lambda$ and $R$ describe how {\it more motivated}  a congruent type is relative to a noncongruent type at the reform implementation. These parameters summarize different agents' reform ``quantity'' and ``quality'' in relative terms; they are essential for the principal's inference.

 Suppose the informativeness condition holds throughout.
\begin{Obs}[Accountability for outcomes]\label{PD}
 In the opaque regime, there exists a unique equilibrium in pure strategy. In this equilibrium, the congruent agent always reforms and implements with efforts internalizing the office benefit. The noncongruent agent chooses the status quo unless the signal is good, in which case he reforms with an effort completely motivated by the office benefits.  The principal removes this agent unless she observes a successful reform.
\end{Obs}
The opaque regime induces the accountability for policy outcomes. In this case, choosing the congruent policy (reform) no longer secures office; doing it right would. To the principal's delight, this accountability provides a high-powered incentive for  reform implementation by linking the agent's policy and office motives. That is, under a retention rule pivotal on reform outcomes, a reform success brings the joint benefits of policy and office vis-a-vis a reform failure. As a result, the agent would internalize the office benefit into the reform implementation efforts. Now that the agent's policy choice has again been distorted by his career concerns, the opaque regime makes a case in which motivating {\it in spite of} pandering is possible.

The equilibrium has several interesting features. The noncongruent agent's policy choice always varys with signals; the congruent agent reforms even if the signal is bad. Their equilibrium behaviors seem to suggest that the noncongruent agent is more {\it responsive}, whereas the congruent agent is too ``timid'' to hold on to his policy judgement. That said, the noncongruent agent's policy responsiveness derives purely from his office-holding motive to gamble for resurrection. Such a motive misalignment exposes the principal to an excessively high risk of reform failure.

The accountability for outcomes echoes prior works in the pandering literature. For example, \cite{FS11} show that an agent may signal congruence/competence from his policy choice/outcomes in what they call a ``delegate equilibrium'' and ``a trustee equilibrium'' respectively. But my accountability mechanism is novel; here, both the policy choice and outcomes matter for retention because each of them enables the principal to learn something about the agent's congruence. That is, the principal screens a noncongruent agent upon observing the status quo; conditional on a reform taking place, she is more convinced about facing a congruent agent upon a successful outcome.

\subsection{Transparent regime}
I continue to study the most transparent policy-making environment, in which the principal knows the agent's effort in addition to his policy choice and outcome.

At face value, the principal may further her policy interest by conditioning her retention decision on all observables. For example, she may want to safeguard the reform quality by promising the agent: ``you shall be removed unless you reform with a good effort {\it and} the reform succeeds.'' Per \cite{H79}, the principal would do better if this promise is credible.

But not all information is equally relevant for retention. In fact, the principal would have cast her vote upon observing whether an agent acts congruently, regardless of whether the reform ends up successfully or not. Put differently, the accountability for implementation and outcomes do not get along. Behind this incompatibility lies a simple idea: excessive transparency constrains the principal's capacity to ``guess'' the agent's congruence from unobserved actions. In the transparent regime we shall expect either perfect or no screening, but nothing in between.

My analysis below focuses on the separating equilibria. This is done purely for technical convenience -- the welfare comparison with respect to the separating equilibria is cleaner and entails no loss of generality. I shall return to the welfare issue shortly; for now, let's rest assured that agent must face the same kind of accountability in both separating and pooling equilibria. Because the reform success is a chance event, the principal does not penalize the agent electorally if both types act in the same way (pooling equilibria). If instead two types behave differently, the principal identifies the congruent agent and rewards accordingly (separating equilibria). These two classes of equilibria share a common element: the action matters for retention; the consequence does not. I describe such a retention rule as exerting the ``accountability for processes''.

Other considerations for selecting on the separating equilibria include: 1) more information about policy-making raises the cost of pooling; thus we tend to believe that more transparency improves sorting. 2) Separating equilibria are more robust to parameter changes. A separating equilibrium always exists because the congruent agent is a better-motivated reformer. A pooling equilibrium surviving the universal divinity refinement exists only if the cost of implementation is not too low (Lemma \ref{EqMul}).

Among the class of separating equilibria, the divinity refinement  uniquely selects the least costly one also known as the ``Riley outcome'' (\cite{Riley79}):

\begin{Obs}[Accountability for processes]\label{FD}
 In the transparent regime, there exists a unique separating equilibrium surviving the universal divinity refinement. In this equilibrium, the congruent agent always reforms and implements with efforts just enough to separate; the noncongruent agent always chooses the status quo. The principal retains whenever observing a reform with an implementation effort beyond the minimal requirement.
\end{Obs}
Contrary to our expectation, more transparency does not necessarily affect accountability in a monotone manner; rather, it induces a different kind of accountability. An agent shall be retained whenever he is willing to bear the increased cost of acting congruently; that is, initiate and implement the reform with an effort exceeding the minimal requirement. He shall not be responsible for any negative reform consequences.

The transparency regime begets two interesting effects. First, the reform decision becomes completely partisan -- the congruent agent always reforms, and the noncongruent one always stays with the status quo. This improves sorting but hurts discipline. Second, the accountability for processes also encourages the congruent agent to implement well, but his motivation comes from  separating with a noncongruent type rather than pursuing a successful reform.

\subsection{Comparison}
Compare Results \ref{PC}-\ref{FD} with the no-accountability benchmark. We note a pattern that echoes previous literature: when the principal sees more, the agent is in general accountable for more aspects of the policy-making (e.g. \cite{Cremer95,D99}); this also engenders pandering incentives (\cite{MT04,Fox07}).   More important are the following novelties:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item More transparency tends to improve sorting because it discourages the noncongruent agent from  signaling congruence via costly means. But more transparency does not translate into a higher or lower level of accountability; rather, it holds the agent accountable for different aspects of policy-making that are not necessarily rankable.
    \item The principal's best hope is to motivate implementation {\it in spite of} the agent's pandering incentive; she cannot employ any information regime to completely eradicate this behavior. The underlying reason is that a congruent agent faces  {\it irreconcilable} conflicts between office-holding and policy motives across all information regimes: the policy motive always recommends a policy decision responsive to signals, whereas the office motive always recommends shying away from the status quo.

  \item Motivating implementation by partially aligning the agent's policy and motive office is possible. Specifically, a retention rule that is pivotal on reform outcomes provides a high-powered incentive for implementation.  Such a rule is possible only within the opaque regime in which the equilibrium political selection is informative but noisy. A retention rule asking for reforming with a minimal effort  requirement also motives the agent. Such a rule is made possible by the transparent regime, where a congruent agent works hard to avoid being perceived as noncongruent.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Mechanism Design}\label{WELF}
Building on the equilibrium analysis in previous sections, I am ready to answer the positive question for the principal: what is the right kind of accountability?

\subsection{Optimal accountability}
Suppose the agent behaves as what I have described in Results \ref{PC}-\ref{FD}.
\begin{Obs}\label{WE}
1) In a nontransparent regime, where the agent is accountable for his policy decision, the principal's welfare is lowest. 2) Depending on model parameters, either the opaque or the transparent regime could prevail; that is, the right kind of accountability is either the accountability for processes or outcomes.
\end{Obs}
The core of this result concerns which kind of accountability elicits the most implementation efforts from an agent who panders to reform. The principal's policy interest is always damaged by the nontransparent regime because a career-minded agent never inputs serious effort. In other words, the accountability for decision induces unproductive pandering.

Either one of the other two information regimes may induce the right accountability. Relative to the transparent regime, the opaque regime is not necessarily better at motivating a congruent agent; the exact comparison hinges on whether the congruent finds it harder to succeed in the reform, or to separate from a noncongruent type. At the same time, the opaque regime is not necessarily worse in terms of distorting a noncongruent agent's policy-making -- from the principal's standpoint, she may prefer this demotivated reformer to occasionally gamble for resurrection by reforming rather than always stay with an unattractive status quo.

\subsection{Comparative Statics}
 Suppose that, for some baseline parameters, the principal-optimal information regime inducing the right accountability is the opaque regime. I assess whether and how certain parameter changes might affect its optimality, assuming players behave according to Results \ref{PC}-\ref{FD}. Subject to the changes, the principal is unwilling to switch information policies if the opaque regime becomes even better at motivating an agent than the transparent regime.

\subsubsection*{Better reform outlook}
A better reform outlook (a higher prior $\phi$ of a good reform) makes the opaque regime more appealing to the principal.

Intuitively, if an agent is ex ante more certain that the reform is good by nature, then he would exerts more efforts at the implementation stage. This change allows the opaque regime to elicit more efforts than the transparent regime. The rationale lies in the composition of the agent's motivation: unique to the opaque regime is the part of efforts coming from the agent internalizing the office rent, which is also increasing in the stronger prior.

\subsubsection*{Lower effort cost/better signal}
When the cost of efforts decreases, and/or the signal accuracy increases, the principal often stays with the opaque regime.

The result comes from a subtle observation about the bar of separation in the transparent regime; that is, a congruent agent does not have to implement with an unnaturally high effort to distinguish himself from a noncongruent type. By ``unnaturally high'', I mean this agent exerts an effort exceeding what he would have done in the absence of career concerns. In fact, it is entirely plausible that a congruent agent's natural implementation effort would suffice to separate. Were this true, then the transparent regime cannot even beat the no-accountability case (because it induces pandering when the state calls for the status quo), let alone the opaque regime.

The parameter changes reinforce this possibility: given a congruent agent who can act ``naturally'' to separate within a transparent regime, lower effort costs and/or better signals make this sort of separation even easier.

\subsubsection*{Larger office rent}
Matters are entirely different if the office rent $R$ increases. A more attractive office better motivates an agent to pursue a successful reform in the opaque regime; it also incentivizes a congruent agent to work harder for separation in the transparent regime. {\it A priori}, it is hard to tell which effect dominates.

In the appendix, I show that from the office rent the principal benefits quadratically via the motivation effect and linearly via the separation effect; furthermore, these two benefits intersect for different values of the office rent. As a result, the principal may wish to switch her information regime more than once as the office rent increases.

\section{Conclusion}\label{CON}
This paper studies the motivation issue in the context of reform policy-making with career concerns. My analysis highlights two novelties. First, the principal in my setup wishes her delegate to not only choose well, but also work hard. While this feature of policy-making has appeared in previous models (e.g. \cite{Hirsch2016}), it has not yet been integrated into the pandering literature in a theoretically serious way. I argue that the motivation issue is {\it real} in policy-making. That is, it does not go away if the principal simply keeps or removes the delegates' accountability; rather, it forces the principal to choose the right kind of accountability that links the delegates' policy and office motives. I formalize this problem in a setting where the delegate faces conflicting office and policy motives, and compare several possible solutions. In general, I show that the principal must hold the delegates accountable for more than the policy decisions. The right kind of accountability -- one that elicits the maximal reform implementation efforts --  hinges on whether the delegate finds it harder to act congruently or to succeed in a reform.

Second, I highlight the difficult commitment problem in complex reform policy-making with career concerns. This is rarely an issue if the the careerist delegates are evaluated on the basis of a binary potential outcome; there, the good news for retention often takes a simple form, be it a ``congruent/noncongruent'' action or a ``good/bad'' outcome. In complex reform decision environment with more than two potential outcomes, such a clear-cut standard is often lacking. An evaluator must bear in mind that the credibility of her retention rule is endogenous to what she can observe about the policy-making. A retention rule pivotal on reform outcomes provides high-powered incentives for implementation,  but it requires the evaluator to refrain from knowing the {\it reason} why a reform succeeds/fails and thus back away from full transparency. The
electoral mechanism through which secrecy helps is closely tied to \cite{AB14}.

How should we relate the theoretical results to the real world? When the public cannot commit to rewarding career-minded officials electorally, one remedy is to establish an ``outcome-based'' accountability. That is, the officials are granted autonomy in the decision-making processes, and evaluated on the basis of whether the decision succeeds. The expression of granting process-autonomy dated back to no later than Sun Tzu's {\it Art of War} \citep[original traditionally dated circa 500 BC]{TS}. He wrote in the chapter of Adaptations (italics are mine):
\begin{quote}
    There are routes not to be followed, armies not to be attacked, citadels not to be besieged, territory no to be fought over, {\it orders of civilian governments not to be obeyed}.
\end{quote}
Cao Cao, a Chinese warlord, statesman and poet during the end of the Han dynasty, interpreted it as ``when it is a matter of {\it expediting} your work, don't be limited to the commands of the civilian leadership''\footnote{Ibid.}. Such a principle guided Chinese generals for millennia.
My results explain why it worked: a process-autonomy decision-making environment encourages the generals to pursue a successful battle because this is the only way to signal either competence or loyalty.

Finally, we observe that the outcome-based accountability is a second-best solution to the motivation problem. Ideally, the public could write a constitutional provision specifying a set of retention probabilities corresponding to each hypothetical policy outcomes. But not all actions, particularly the political ones, are contractible. For example, it perhaps goes beyond Cummings's capacity to enforce a list of promotions and punishments on his Whitehall fellows for every consequence of the Brexit. When motivation is necessary to guarantee the quality of policy-making, it is often a good idea for the public to maintain an arm's length relationship with the officials.

\clearpage