Development evaluation, which prioritizes poverty reduction, potentially can increase the responsiveness of policy to poor people. Power imbalances, however, mean that although development evaluation has the possibility to be an important contributor to poverty reduction efforts, the interests of the poor are often excluded from the process of evaluation. In this article a framework that utilizes principal–agent concepts is detailed and applied, drawing on five case studies. An emerging configuration of principal–agent relations within the case studies is discussed and some potential entry points for evaluation to support responsiveness are highlighted. This discussion provides initial evidence of the applicability of the principal–agent concepts to advance development evaluation practice.
AkerloffGA (1970) The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics84(3): 488–500.
2.
BasingaPGertlerPJBinagwahoA. (2011) Effect on maternal and child health services in Rwanda of payment to primary health-care providers for performance: An impact evaluation. The Lancet377(9775): 1421–8.
3.
Bemelmans-VidecMRistRVedungE (2003) Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
4.
BeningtonJMooreMH (2011) Public value in complex and changing times. In: BeningtonJMooreMH (eds) Public Value: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillian, 1–30.
5.
BoothDGolooba-MutebiF (2012) Developmental patrimonialism? The case of Rwanda. African Affairs111(444): 379–403.
6.
BoothDCrookRGyimah-BoadiE. (2005) What are the drivers of change in Ghana. CDD/ODI Policy Brief, 1.
7.
BoyleRLemarieD (1999) Building Effective Evaluation Capacity: Lessons from Practice. London: Transaction Publishers.
8.
ChelimskyE (2006) The purpose of evaluation in a democratic society. In: ShawIGreenJCMarkMM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
DahlRA (1973) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
10.
HouseEHoweK (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
11.
HydenG (2008) After the Paris Declaration: Taking on the issue of power. Development Policy Review26(3): 259–74.
12.
KlerkxLLeeuwisC (2008) Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy33(3): 260–76.
13.
LindbergSI (2013) Mapping accountability: Core concept and subtypes. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(2): 202–26.
14.
LukesS (1977) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
15.
MackayK (2007) How to Build M&E Systems to Better Support Government. Washington, DC: World Bank.
16.
MoscoV (1996) The Political Economy of Communication: Rethinking and Renewal. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PicciottoR (1995) Introduction: Evaluation and development. New Directions for Evaluation67: 13–23.
19.
PicciottoRWiesnerE (1998) Evaluation and Development: The Instituional Dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.
20.
PorterS (2013) Moving beyond teaching people to fish: VOPE’s role in sustainable learning strategies by working as innovation intermediaries. In: SegoneMRughJ (eds) Strengthening Evaluation Organization’s Capacity to Contribute to Country-Led Evaluation Systems. New York: UNICEF.
PorterSGoldmanI (2013) A growing demand for monitoring and evaluation in Africa. African Evaluation Journal1(1): 9.
23.
PowellGB (2004) The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy15(4): 91–105.
24.
ReillyJ (2012) Strong Soceity, Smart State: The Rise of Public Opinion in China’s Japan Policy. New York: Columbia.
25.
SchattschneiderEE (1964) The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
26.
SchillemansTBusuiocM (2015) Predicting public sector accountability: From agency drift to forum drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(1): 191–215.
StiglitzJE (2002) Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. The American Economic Review92(3): 460–501.
29.
WiesnerE (2011) The evaluation of macroeconomic institutional arrangements in Latin America. In: RistRCBoilyM-HMartinF (eds) Influencing Change: Evaluation and Capacity Building Driving Good Practice in Development and Evaluation. Washington, DC: World Bank.
30.
WoodBKabellDMuwangaN.. (2008) Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: Phase One: Synthesis Report. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
