Shifting Power? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives

Rosie McGee, John Gaventa
{"title":"Shifting Power? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives","authors":"Rosie McGee,&nbsp;John Gaventa","doi":"10.1111/j.2040-0209.2011.00383_2.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Accountability and transparency initiatives have taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of the century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving.</p>\n <p>This paper arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives which gathered and analysed existing evidence, discussed how it could be improved, and evaluated how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced. This paper takes the discussion further, by delving into what lies behind the methodological and evaluative debates currently surrounding governance and accountability work. It illustrates how choices about methods are made in the context of impact assessment designs driven by different objectives and different ideological and epistemological underpinnings. We argue that these differences are articulated as methodological debates, obscuring vital issues underlying accountability work, which are about power and politics, not methodological technicalities.</p>\n <p>In line with this argument, there is a need to re-think what impact means in relation to accountability initiatives, and to governance and social change efforts more broadly. This represents a serious challenge to the prevailing impact paradigm, posed by the realities of unaccountable governance, unproven accountability programming and uncertain evidence of impact. A learning approach to evaluation and final impact assessment would give power and politics a central place in monitoring and evaluation systems, continually test and revise assumptions about theories of change and ensure the engagement of marginalised people in assessment processes. Such an approach is essential if donors and policy makers are to develop a reliable evidence base to demonstrate that transparency and accountability work is of real value to poor and vulnerable people.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100618,"journal":{"name":"IDS Working Papers","volume":"2011 383","pages":"1-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2011.00383_2.x","citationCount":"137","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IDS Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2011.00383_2.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 137

Abstract

Accountability and transparency initiatives have taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of the century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving.

This paper arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives which gathered and analysed existing evidence, discussed how it could be improved, and evaluated how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced. This paper takes the discussion further, by delving into what lies behind the methodological and evaluative debates currently surrounding governance and accountability work. It illustrates how choices about methods are made in the context of impact assessment designs driven by different objectives and different ideological and epistemological underpinnings. We argue that these differences are articulated as methodological debates, obscuring vital issues underlying accountability work, which are about power and politics, not methodological technicalities.

In line with this argument, there is a need to re-think what impact means in relation to accountability initiatives, and to governance and social change efforts more broadly. This represents a serious challenge to the prevailing impact paradigm, posed by the realities of unaccountable governance, unproven accountability programming and uncertain evidence of impact. A learning approach to evaluation and final impact assessment would give power and politics a central place in monitoring and evaluation systems, continually test and revise assumptions about theories of change and ensure the engagement of marginalised people in assessment processes. Such an approach is essential if donors and policy makers are to develop a reliable evidence base to demonstrate that transparency and accountability work is of real value to poor and vulnerable people.

转移权力?评估透明度和问责制倡议的影响
自世纪之交以来,问责制和透明度倡议席卷了民主化、治理、援助和发展领域。参与这些行动的许多行为者——作为捐助者、资助者、项目管理人员、实施者和研究人员——现在渴望更多地了解这些行动正在取得什么成果。本文源于对透明度和问责倡议的影响和有效性的审查,该审查收集和分析了现有证据,讨论了如何改进它,并评估了如何提高影响和有效性。本文通过深入研究当前围绕治理和问责制工作的方法和评估辩论背后的内容,进一步展开了讨论。它说明了在不同目标和不同意识形态和认识论基础驱动的影响评估设计背景下如何选择方法。我们认为,这些差异是作为方法论的辩论而表达出来的,模糊了问责工作背后的关键问题,这些问题是关于权力和政治的,而不是方法论的技术细节。根据这一论点,有必要重新思考与问责制倡议以及更广泛的治理和社会变革努力有关的影响意味着什么。由于缺乏问责制的治理、未经证实的问责制规划和影响证据不确定等现实,这对目前的影响范式构成了严重挑战。对评价和最后影响评价采取学习方法将使权力和政治在监测和评价系统中占据中心地位,不断检验和修订关于变革理论的假设,并确保边缘化人民参与评价过程。如果捐助者和决策者要建立一个可靠的证据基础,以证明透明度和问责制工作对穷人和弱势群体具有真正的价值,这种方法是必不可少的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信