Boosting or Hindering Aid Effectiveness? An Assessment of Systems for Measuring Agency Results

Sarah Holzapfel
{"title":"Boosting or Hindering Aid Effectiveness? An Assessment of Systems for Measuring Agency Results","authors":"Sarah Holzapfel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2546240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amid rising criticism of aid effectiveness coupled with tight budgets in many donor countries at a time of economic crisis, donor agencies are under pressure to deliver value for money and to demonstrate development results. In response to these pressures, more and more donor agencies are adopting standard indicators, which allow for results to be aggregated across interventions and countries, in order to report agency-wide results. This paper analyses the reporting practices of ten bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and assesses the implications of agency-wide results measurement systems for aid effectiveness. The analysis shows that the data on aggregate results provided by donor agencies is only of limited informational value and does not provide an adequate basis for holding donor agencies to account. Moreover, reporting on agency-wide results may have a number of adverse effects. Given the various limitations and risks identified in this paper, I suggest that donor agencies should explore complementary options or alternatives to standard indicators in order to meet their reporting requirements. Donor agencies are advised to invest more in rigorous impact evaluations, to raise the transparency of individual interventions and to incorporate beneficiary feedback more systematically into their monitoring and evaluation efforts.","PeriodicalId":372426,"journal":{"name":"Andrew Young: Department of Public Management & Policy (Topic)","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Andrew Young: Department of Public Management & Policy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2546240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Amid rising criticism of aid effectiveness coupled with tight budgets in many donor countries at a time of economic crisis, donor agencies are under pressure to deliver value for money and to demonstrate development results. In response to these pressures, more and more donor agencies are adopting standard indicators, which allow for results to be aggregated across interventions and countries, in order to report agency-wide results. This paper analyses the reporting practices of ten bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and assesses the implications of agency-wide results measurement systems for aid effectiveness. The analysis shows that the data on aggregate results provided by donor agencies is only of limited informational value and does not provide an adequate basis for holding donor agencies to account. Moreover, reporting on agency-wide results may have a number of adverse effects. Given the various limitations and risks identified in this paper, I suggest that donor agencies should explore complementary options or alternatives to standard indicators in order to meet their reporting requirements. Donor agencies are advised to invest more in rigorous impact evaluations, to raise the transparency of individual interventions and to incorporate beneficiary feedback more systematically into their monitoring and evaluation efforts.
促进还是阻碍援助的有效性?衡量机构成果的系统评估
由于对援助有效性的批评越来越多,加上许多捐助国在经济危机时期预算紧张,捐赠机构面临着提供物有所值并展示发展成果的压力。为了应对这些压力,越来越多的捐助机构正在采用标准指标,以便在干预措施和国家之间汇总结果,以便报告整个机构的结果。本文分析了十个双边和多边捐助机构的报告做法,并评估了全机构成果衡量系统对援助有效性的影响。分析表明,捐助机构提供的关于总体结果的数据只有有限的资料价值,并没有为追究捐助机构的责任提供充分的基础。此外,报告整个机构的结果可能会产生一些不利影响。鉴于本文所指出的各种限制和风险,我建议捐助机构应探索标准指标的补充办法或替代办法,以满足其报告要求。建议捐助机构更多地投资于严格的影响评价,提高个别干预措施的透明度,并更系统地将受益人反馈纳入其监测和评价工作。
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