This article addresses the question ‘Does aid work?’ by asking ‘How do we know if it works?’ Despite substantial refinement in evaluation approaches, evaluation remains without any orthodoxy about how to assess effectiveness. The article examines the purposes of evaluation to discern unresolved tensions between accountability and an organizational learning approach. This is framed by the current vogue of Managing for Development Results, integral to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in attaining the Millennium Development Goals. The article appraises the ‘paradigm war’ revealed in debates over methodology and the utility of the logical framework. It critiques limitations in development evaluation doctrine to highlight profound uncertainties of attribution and causality. The ‘evaluation gap’ between the rhetoric of donors and their evaluation practice, unsurprisingly, inhibits the evaluation of aid effectiveness.
Alkire S. ( 2003) A conceptual framework for human security. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity , Oxford, Working Paper, No. 2.
2.
Armytage L. ( 1996) Educating Judges. London/ Boston: Brill/Kluwer Law.
3.
Baker J. ( 2000) Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank. URL (consulted 25 November 2009 ): http://go.worldbank.org/8E2ZTGBOI0
4.
Bamberger M., Rugh J. and Mabry L. ( 2007) RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints. Professional Development Workshop10, 6 November. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.realworldevaluation.org/RealWorld_Evaluation_resour.html
5.
Bell S. ( 2000) Logical frameworks, Aristotle and soft systems: a note on the original values and uses of logical frameworks in reply to Gasper . Public Administration and Development20: 29-31.
6.
Binnendijk A. ( 2000) Results-based Management in Development Cooperation Agencies: A Review of Experience. Paris: OECD-DAC.
7.
Bouckaert G. and Peters G. ( 2002) Performance measurement and management: the Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization. Public Performance & Management Review25(4): 359-62.
8.
Burnside C. and Dollar D. ( 2000) Aid, policies, and growth. The American Economic Review90(4): 847-68.
9.
Cracknell B. ( 2000) Evaluating Development Aid: Issues, Problems and Solutions . London: SAGE.
10.
Crawford P., Perryman J. and Petocz P. ( 2004) Synthetic indices: a method for evaluating aid project effectiveness. Evaluation10(2): 175-92.
11.
Department for International Development ( 2005) Guidance on Evaluation and Review for DFID Staff. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Site-search/?q=guidance+evaluation+2005
12.
Duflo E. ( 2003) Does Development Aid Make a Difference?Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
13.
Gasper D. ( 2000) Evaluating the logical framework approach: towards learning orientated development evaluation. Public Administration and Development20: 17-28.
14.
Guba E. and Lincoln Y. ( 1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
15.
J-PAL (n.d.) URL (consulted 16 February 2011 ): http://www.3ieimpact.org/userfiles/file/3ie_Leaflet_for_web.pdf
16.
Kenny C. ( 2006) What is effective aid; how would donors allocate it?World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 4005.
17.
Kusek J. and Rist R. ( 2004) Ten Steps to a Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington, DC: World Bank .
18.
Leeuw F. and Furubo J. ( 2008) Evaluation systems: what are they and why study them? Evaluation14(2): 157-69.
19.
MacKay K. ( 2002) The World Banks ECB experience. New Directions for Evaluation93: 81-99.
20.
Mackay K. ( 2006) Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation systems to improve public sector management. World Bank Independent Evaluation Group and Thematic Group for Poverty Analysis, Washington, DC, Working Paper, No. 15.
21.
Nielsen S. and Ejler N. ( 2008) Improving performance? Exploring the complementarities between evaluation and performance management. Evaluation14(2): 171-92.
22.
Norton J. ( 2001) International financial institutions and the movement towards greater accountability and transparency: the case of legal reform programs and the problem of evaluation. International Lawyer35: 1443-79.
23.
Nonie (n.d.) URL (consulted 16 February 2011 ): http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie
24.
Oecd (2003) Rome Declaration on Harmonisation URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/50/31451637.pdf
25.
Oecd (2004) Second international roundtable on ‘Managing for Development Results’ 2004. Marakech: DCD/ DIR.
26.
Oecd (2005) Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf
27.
Oecd (2008) Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration - Effective aid by 2010? What will it take?Paris: OECD.
28.
Oecd (n.d.) DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html
29.
Oecd-Dac (1991) Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris: OECD.
30.
Oecd-Dac (2002) Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based Monitoring. Paris : OECD.
31.
Oecd-Dac (2010) Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. Paris: OECD. URL (consulted 28 February 2011): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf
32.
OECD and World Bank (2008) Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results: Source Book. Washington, DC: World Bank.
33.
Patton M. ( 2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
Perrin B. ( 1998) Effective use and misuse of performance measures . American Journal of Evaluation19(3): 367-79.
35.
Picciotto R. ( 2002a) The logic of renewal: evaluation at the World Bank (1992-2002) Speech delivered at the OED: The First 30 Years. , Washington, DC, 23 September.
36.
Picciotto R. ( 2002b) Development cooperation and performance evaluation: the Monterrey challenge. Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluations Department Working Paper.
37.
Prowse M. ( 2007) Aid effectiveness: the role of qualitative research in impact evaluation. Overseas Development Institute, London, Background Note, December 2007.
38.
Ramalingam B. and Jones H. ( 2008) Exploring the Science of Complexity. London, Working Paper, No. 285.
39.
Saith A. ( 2006) From universal values to millennium development goals: lost in translation. Development and Change37(6): 1167-99.
40.
Savedoff W. and Levine R. ( 2006) When will we ever learn: improving lives through impact evaluation. Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group, Centre for Global Development, Washington, DC.
41.
Schiavo-Campo S. ( 2005) ECD: building country capacity for monitoring and evaluation in the public sector: selected lessons of international experience . World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department, Washington, DC, Working Paper, No. 13.
42.
United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration, GA Res 55/2, UN GAOR, 55th Session, Suppl . no. 49, UN Doc. A/55/49. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
43.
United Nations (2002) Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development. In: Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development, Res 1, UN Doc A/CONF.198/11.
44.
United Nations (2005) Human Development Report 2005. New York: UNDP, 40.
45.
United Nations (2008) Third high level forum on aid effectiveness. Accra Agenda for Action, Ghana, Ministers’ Statement, 4 September 2008.
46.
United Nations Evaluation Group (2005) Norms for Evaluation in the UN System, 6. URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4
47.
Van Den Berg R. ( 2005) Results evaluation and impact assessment in development co-operation. Evaluation11(1): 27-36.
48.
Van Thiel S. and Leeuw F. ( 2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review25(3): 267-81.
49.
White H. ( 2006) Impact evaluation: the experience of the independent evaluation group of the World Bank. World Bank, Washington, DC, MPRA Paper, No. 1111.
50.
World Bank (1998) Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why. New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
World Bank (2006) Impact Evaluation and the Project Cycle. Washington, DC: World Bank, Thematic Group on Poverty Analysis, Monitoring and Impact Evaluation .
52.
3iE (n.d.) URL (consulted 16 February 2011): http://www.povertyactionlab.org/about-j-pal
