Participatory development : myths and dilemmas

The recent evolution of development thinking has highlighted popular involvement in decision making. Yet policy gridlock and stop-and-go implementation have been associated with excessive responsiveness to interest groups. This paper aims to pull together seemingly disparate strands of development thinking and experience. After debunking some popular myths, the development antecedents of participation are identified and a definition of participation is offered. Next, a stylized theory is presented at the micro level. Some implications are then drawn for organizational design and for development policy planning. The focus on participatory development signifies an opening of development economics to disciplines other than macroeconomics. In particular, microeconomics and business administration must join forces under the umbrella of institutional economics, political economists, and development practice should be shaped by all the social science disciplines.Health Economics&Finance,Economic Theory&Research,ICT Policy and Strategies,TF054599-PHRD-KYRGYZ REPUBLIC: WATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,Governance Indicators

Development Effectiveness at the Country Level

While we know a lot about how countries become prosperous, we have only begun to understand how aid contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction. The development record is mixed and no robust association between the volume of aid and development performance has been discovered. The limits of cross-country regressions have become clear: they do not throw much light on the reality of aid. But the novel mix of qualitative and quantitative methods fashioned by independent evaluators constitutes a serviceable approach to the assessment of aid effectiveness both at project level and at country level. In particular, a new brand of country assistance evaluations (CAEs) has demonstrated that success at project level matters even if it does not automatically translate into success at country level?the ?micro-macro paradox?. Evaluations confirm that well-managed aid, using instruments that are tailored to specific country contexts, works. They show that budget support mechanisms and programme aid instruments have a role to play in certain circumstances while projects are the aid vehicles of choice in others. The popular notion that development effectiveness can be ensured through the targeting of aid towards countries classified as good performers by idealized sets of indicators has been discredited. Recent policy research suggests that, despite the risks ...aid, policies, projects, programmes, country strategies

Is International Agricultural Research a Global Public Good?

Presentation at ICW 2000 by Robert Picciotto, Director General of the Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank. Picciotto announces a review of global public policies and programs, including the CGIAR, to be conducted by Uma Lele, a former TAC member, now in his department.He discusses the approach of the World Bank to global issues, the role of the CGIAR, and the need for change. He finds that it is not obvious that the CGIAR is producing global public goods

Towards a Complexity Framework for Transformative Evaluation

Background:  Complexity ideas originating in mathematics and the natural sciences have begun to inform evaluation practice. A new wave in evaluation history is about to break. A new mindset, new methods, and new evaluation processes are being summoned to explore and address the challenges of global pandemics, growing inequities, and existential environmental risks. This is part of a broader paradigm shift underway in science where interdisciplinarity has become the norm rather than the exception. Purpose: This article explores the utility of a complexity framework for a more effective evaluation function. It unearths the antecedents of complexity thinking; explores its relevance to evolving knowledge paradigms; provides a bird’s eye view of complexity concepts; uses the logic of complex adaptive systems to unpack the role of evaluation in society; and draws the implications of contemporary social challenges for evaluation policy directions. Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable. Research design: Not applicable. Findings: The evaluation complexity challenge coincides with an urgent imperative: social transformation. The on-going pandemic has brought to light the disproportionate effects of health emergencies on disadvantaged groups and emphasized the urgency of improving the interface between humans and nature. It has also demonstrated the importance of modelling for policy making – as well as its limitations. Evaluation, a complex adaptive system, should be transformed to serve society. Keywords: complexity; computers; disciplines; emergence; modelling; paradigm, system

Evaluation Independence in Organizations

Background: Evaluation independence is a neglected issue in the literature. Yet, it is a critical aspect of evaluation governance in organizations.   Purpose: The article draws on organizational theory, institutional economics and international development evaluation practice to define evaluation independence in organizations, outline principles geared to the design of evaluation processes within organizations and trigger a debate on evaluation independence in the evaluation community.   Intervention: Not applicable.   Research Design: Literature review informed by personal exposure to management of the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group.   Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.   Findings: Independent and self-evaluation are complementary and synergistic. Organizational theory demonstrates that a judicious combination of independent and self-evaluation contributes to managerial accountability and double loop learning.   Keywords: independence; accountability; internal evaluation; external evaluation; double loop learnin

Development effectiveness at the country level

"While we know a lot about how countries become prosperous, we have only begun to understand how aid contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction. The development record is mixed and no robust association between the volume of aid and development performance has been unearthed. Cross country regressions do not throw much light on the reality of aid. The novel mix of qualitative and quantitative methods fashioned by independent evaluators is more informative regarding aid effectiveness both at project level and at country level. A new brand of country assistance evaluations demonstrates that success at project level matters even if it does not always translate into success at country level - the 'micro-macro paradox'. Well managed aid works when it uses instruments that are tailored to specific country contexts. Budget support mechanisms and program aid instruments have a role to play in some circumstances. Projects are the aid vehicles of choice in others. The popular notion that development effectiveness can be ensured through the targeting of aid towards countries that are classified as good performers by idealized sets of indicators has been discredited. Conversely, recent policy research findings suggest that, despite the risks involved, aid does the most good when it privileges the weakest and poorest economies and those most vulnerable to shock. To achieve development effectiveness at country level, coherence of interventions is critical as is judicious sequencing. Development operations should be (i) selected to fit within coherent country assistance strategies, (ii) aligned with the priorities of the country and (iii) coordinated with other policies and the actions of partners. This is because the quality of aid matters as much as its quantity since it is a transmission belt for ideas, a device to train development leaders, an instrument to build state capacity and a platform for policy experimentation and dissemination. The final proposition offered by this paper is that professionally administered aid works but that it would work even better in concert with reforms of rich countries' policies. The new development agenda should extend beyond aid. It should aim at levelling the playing field of the global market and at peace building in the zones of turmoil of the developing world." (author's abstract

Hirschman’s Ideas as Evaluation Tools

Background: Albert O. Hirschman, one of the most distinguished social scientist of the past half century, is not widely known within the evaluation community. Yet he practiced the art of evaluation without acknowledging it and the influential concepts that he generated are extremely valuable as evaluation tools.Purpose: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate by dint of example of example that Hirschman’s ideas illuminate the development experience; inform evaluation methods and have potential as guides to evaluation practice. Setting: Hirschman’s unique intellectual contributions to our understanding of society have recently been recognized in a flurry of publications that followed his death in 2012.Intervention: This article did not require an intervention.Research Design: Three popular Hirschman concepts are dissected and used to explore a variety of evaluation policy issues.Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.Findings: Hirschman’s mental constructs are interconnected; throw new light on evaluation criteria and can be used to get the most out of the evaluation function in diverse authorizing environments

Donald T. Cambell’s Evolutionary Perspective and its Implications for Evaluation

Background: Donald T. Campbell, a scientist, humanist, and generalist, left an indelible mark on the evaluation discipline through his methodological work. He is less well known within the evaluation community for his landmark contributions to biology and philosophy. Yet, the evolutionary epistemology that he pioneered has significant implications for evaluation.     Purpose: This article examines the relevance of Donald T. Campbell’s blind variation and natural selection approach to evaluation theory, including an elucidation of its basic logic, its social remit as a discipline and trans-discipline, and its summative and formative functions. It also sketches in broad strokes the implications of evolutionary thinking for evaluation practice, including natural and artificial selection, ontogeny, phylogeny, co-evolution, and feedback. Finally, it comments on Campbell’s Experimenting Society vision and  the ongoing craze for randomised evaluations in development through an evolutionary lens.   Setting: Not applicable.   Intervention: Not applicable.   Research Design:  Not applicable.   Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.   Findings: Not applicable. &nbsp