This article explores the possibilities of improving development assistance evaluation theoreti
cally and conceptually by exchanging the experience with the evaluation discipline in general.
Aid evaluation is analyzed within the overall framework of the foundations of program evalu
ation. By placing aid evaluation into the framework of the general evaluation discipline, it is
thus demonstrated that aid evaluation can be strengthened as it concerns its conceptual and
theoretical structure, and it is found that attaining greater theoretical and conceptual stringency
in aid evaluations will contribute toward improved quality and the usefulness of such evaluations
in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bamberger, M.1989. The monitoring and evaluation of public sector programs in Asia: Why are development programs monitored but not evaluated?Evaluation Review13 (3):223-43
2.
. Baum, W.C.1982. The project cycleWashington, DC: World Bank.
3.
Berlage, L., and O. Stokke, eds. 1992. Evaluating development assistance: Approaches and methods.London: Frank Cass.
4.
Binnendijk, A.L.1989. Donor agency experience with the monitoring and evaluation of development projectsEvaluation Review13(3):206-33
5.
. Carlsson, J., G. Köhlin, and A. Ekbom.1994. The political economy of evaluation: International aid agencies and the effectiveness of aidLondon: Macmillan.
6.
Cassen, R.1986. Does aid work?Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Cracknell, B.E.1988. Evaluating development assistance: A review of the literaturePublic Administration and Development8:75-83
Dennis, M.L., and R.F. Boruch.1989. Randomized experiments for planning and testing projects in developing countriesEvaluation Review13 (3):292-309
10.
. Edwards, N., and M. Lyons.1983. Community assessment: A tool for motivation and evaluation in primary health care in Sierra Leone In Practising Healthfor All, edited by Morley et al, 100-13. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Elzinga, A.1981. Evaluating the evaluation game: On the methodology of project evaluation, with special reference to development cooperationStockholm, Sweden: SAREC.
12.
Fao.1988. Participatory monitoring and evaluation: Handbook for training field workersBangkok, Thailand: FAO.
13.
Feuerstein, M.T.1978. Evaluation—by the peopleInternational Nursing Review25 (5):146-53
14.
. —. 1986. Partners in evaluation: Evaluating development and community programmes with participantsLondon: Macmillan.
15.
Forss, K.1989. Participatory evaluation: Questions and issues CEO Occasional Paper No. 1. New York: CEO.
16.
—. 1991. The evaluation policy and performance of Sweden In Evaluating development assistance: Policys and performance , edited by O. Stokke, 208-27. London: Frank Cass.
17.
Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln.1985. Fourth generation evaluationLondon: Sage.
18.
Hellstern, G.M.1985. Assessing evaluation research In Guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector, edited by F. X. Kaufmann, G. Majone, V Ostrom, and W. Wirth. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
19.
Jahoda, M.E., and Barnitz1955The nature of evaluationInternational Social Science Bulletin7(1).
20.
Lawrence, J.1989. Engaging recipients in developmental evaluation: The "stakeholder approach" Evaluation Review13 (3):243-57
21.
. Lindblom, C.E.1959. The science of "muddling through."Public Administration Review19:79-88
22.
. —. 1979. Still muddling, not yet throughPublic Administration Review, November/ December, 517-26
23.
. Narayan-Parker, D.1989. Goals and indicators for integrated water supply in partnership with peopleNew York: PROWWESS/UNDP.
24.
—. 1991. Participatory evaluation: Tools for managing change in water/sanitationNew York: PROWWESS/UNDP/IBRD/UNICEF/WHO.
25.
Norad.1993a. Learning from experience: A study of the feedback from evaluations and reviews in Norwegian bilateral aid Evaluation Report 1.93. Oslo, Norway: NORAD/ Scanteam International.
26.
—. 1993b. Evaluenng og resultatvurdering i bistanden: Håndbokfor utøvere og beslutningstakere [Evaluating and achievement assessment in aid. A handbook for practitioners and decision-makers] Norweigan Ministry of foreign affairs. Oslo, Norway: NORAD .
27.
Oecd.1986. Methods and procedures in aid evaluationParis: OECD.
28.
—. 1992a. The DAC expert group on aid evaluation: A review of ten years of workParis: OECD .
29.
—. 1992b. DAC principles for effective aidParis: OECD.
Riddell, R.C.1987. Foreign aid reconsideredLondon : ODI/James Currey.
32.
Rossi, P.H., and H.E. Freeman.1993. Evaluation: A systematic approachLondon: Sage.
33.
Rugh, J.1986. Self-evaluation: Ideas for participatory evaluation of rural development projectsOklahoma City, OK: World Neighbors.
34.
Schaumburg-Müller, H.1991. The evaluation policy and performance of Denmark In Evaluating development assistance: Policies and performance , edited by O. Stokke, 100-27. London: Frank Cass .
35.
Scriven, M.1967. The methodology of evaluation In Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, edited by R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and M. Scriven, 39-83Chicago: Rand McNally.
36.
—. 1993. Hard-won lessons in program evaluation New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and L.C. Leviton.1991. Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practiceNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Sida.1994. Evaluation manual for SIDAStockholm, Sweden: SIDA .
39.
Stokke, O., ed. 1991a. Evaluating development assistance: Policies and performance.London: Frank Cass.
40.
—. 1991b. Policies, performance, trends and challenges in aid evaluation In Evaluating development assistance: Policies and performance , edited by O. Stokke, 1-60. London: Frank Cass.
41.
Swantz, M.L.1992. Participatory research and the evaluation of the effects of aid on women In Evaluating development assistance: Approaches and methods, edited by L. Berlage and O. Stokke, 104-21. London : Frank Cass.
42.
Thompson, R., ed. 1991. A.I.D. Evaluation News. A Newsletter on Recent Evaluation Findings and Methods 3(2).
