The statement that "Contracting out tasks without effective accountability mechanisms can be counter-productive for effective service delivery" is unequivocally true. While contracting out, or outsourcing, government tasks and services to private entities, NGOs, or other external agencies offers potential benefits like efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and access to specialized expertise, these advantages are severely undermined, and often reversed, in the absence of robust accountability frameworks.

Without effective accountability, several counter-productive outcomes can emerge. Firstly, there is a significant risk of quality degradation. Private contractors, driven by profit motives, might cut corners, use substandard materials, or employ less qualified personnel to reduce costs, leading to services that fail to meet public expectations or established standards. This directly impacts the quality of service delivery, which is the primary goal of any public service.

Secondly, the lack of accountability can foster corruption and lack of transparency. Opaque contracting processes, poorly defined scopes of work, and inadequate oversight create opportunities for rent-seeking, illicit payments, and favoritism in awarding contracts. This not only wastes public funds but also erodes public trust in government and the integrity of the service delivery system. Citizens may also find it difficult to understand who is responsible for a service, leading to a lack of clarity in grievance redressal.

Thirdly, the government risks losing control and oversight over essential public functions. If the terms of the contract are vague or monitoring mechanisms are weak, the government may find itself unable to enforce performance standards, make necessary adjustments, or terminate underperforming contracts without significant legal and financial repercussions. This can lead to a 'hollow state' where the government retains responsibility but lacks the capacity to ensure effective delivery.

Fourthly, public trust and confidence in government can be severely damaged. When outsourced services fail or are delivered poorly, the public holds the government, not the private contractor, ultimately responsible. This can lead to widespread dissatisfaction and a perception of governmental incompetence or indifference.

To ensure that contracting out is productive, effective accountability mechanisms are indispensable. These include:

1. Clear and Comprehensive Contracts: Detailed specifications, performance metrics, service level agreements, penalties for non-compliance, and clear exit clauses.
2. Robust Monitoring and Evaluation: Regular audits, performance reviews, and independent assessments to ensure adherence to contractual obligations and quality standards.
3. Transparency: Public disclosure of contracts, performance data, and financial details to allow for public scrutiny.
4. Effective Grievance Redressal: Accessible and responsive mechanisms for citizens to report issues and seek remedies.
5. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: Strong laws to enforce contracts, penalize fraud, and protect public interest.
6. Capacity Building: Government agencies need the capacity to manage contracts, monitor performance, and negotiate effectively.

In conclusion, while contracting out can be a valuable tool for enhancing service delivery, its success hinges entirely on the presence and rigorous enforcement of robust accountability mechanisms. Without these, the potential benefits are overshadowed by risks of poor quality, corruption, loss of control, and erosion of public trust, ultimately making the endeavor counter-productive.