Fact check: So what are the indicators that prove that government decisions will be better for the general public

1. Why institutionalized evaluation signals better policy: evidence that learning systems improve outcomes

Institutionalizing public policy evaluation creates a predictable mechanism to test assumptions, measure impacts, and adapt programs, and the OECD explicitly frames this as central to evidence-informed policymaking; routine evaluations reduce the risk of repeating failed policies and raise the probability that resources are reallocated toward higher-impact interventions. The OECD Implementation Toolkit sets standards for governance arrangements, quality assurance, and integration of evaluation findings into decision cycles, arguing that when evaluations are mandated and resourced, they become embedded in policymaking culture rather than episodic exercises. This approach also enables external scrutiny and parliamentary oversight, creating incentives for implementers to prioritize measurable outcomes. Countries that adopt these institutional features demonstrate stronger capacity to learn from past performance and adjust policy levers — a practical indicator that future decisions will be guided by evidence rather than ad hoc politics ^[1].

2. Measuring what citizens value: the practical test of relevance and legitimacy

Focusing measurement on outcomes that matter to citizens—health, security, sustainability, cohesion, prosperity—shifts government attention from inputs and processes to lived results, and the Australian “Measuring What Matters” statement operationalizes this shift by prioritizing metrics aligned with public priorities. When governments publicly commit to a suite of citizen-centered indicators, they create accountability pathways that allow voters and civil society to judge progress on issues that affect daily life; this alignment makes policy choices more legitimate and better targeted, because policymakers must justify trade-offs against agreed public goals. However, choosing indicators can be politically contested: selection processes must be transparent and inclusive to avoid gaming or symbolic metrics that obscure substantive decline. The presence of a robust, publicly accessible dashboard of meaningful outcome indicators is therefore a key sign that decisions will be oriented toward general welfare ^[2].

3. Trust and service satisfaction: the social proof that governance reforms matter

Cross-country comparisons in the OECD’s Government at a Glance report link trust in government and satisfaction with public services to democratic resilience and policy effectiveness, indicating that perceived performance matters for compliance, cooperation, and the durability of reforms. High trust levels reduce transaction costs for implementing complex policies and increase civic buy-in, while low trust often forces governments to divert resources to enforcement or short-term popularity measures. The OECD also highlights modern governance practices—citizen engagement and ethical AI use—that can sustain trust by making decision processes more inclusive and less opaque. Yet trust is endogenous: good policies build trust, but trust also enables policy success, so analysts must interpret trust indicators alongside objective performance metrics to avoid circular conclusions ^[3].

4. Where these approaches conflict and what to watch for: politics, measurement bias, and capability gaps

These frameworks converge on evaluation, citizen-centered measurement, and trust-building, but tensions arise in practice: political incentives can subvert evaluations, indicator selection can be manipulated for optics, and administrative capacity may lag behind ambitions. A government may publish impressive dashboards without effective implementation, or commission evaluations that are weak, non-independent, or ignored, producing a façade of evidence-based policymaking. Donors, opposition parties, or advocacy groups may push for particular metrics to advance agendas; therefore, scrutiny of who controls evaluation bodies, the transparency of methodologies, and whether findings genuinely influence budget and policy choices is essential. The presence of independent auditors, parliamentary uptake of evaluation recommendations, and demonstrable reallocation of resources toward successful programs are therefore critical corroborating signals ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Practical checklist: observable indicators that decisions will likely serve the public interest

Combine the three strands into a practical checklist: existence of statutory, resourced evaluation institutions with transparent methodologies; publicly reported outcome indicators chosen through inclusive processes and aligned with citizen priorities; measurable increases in trust and service satisfaction corroborated by objective performance data; demonstrable use of evaluation findings in budgeting and legislation; and safeguards against conflicts of interest in evaluation and data governance. When these elements appear together and produce visible policy changes—programme closures, reallocations, or scaled-up effective interventions—the evidence strongly indicates that government decisions are improving general welfare. Absent these corroborating signals, individual indicators are insufficient: only the ensemble of institutionalized evaluation, citizen-centered metrics, and trust-building measures offers a robust basis to conclude decisions will benefit the public ^{[1] [2] [3]}.