Evaluation in the Practice of Development

M. Ravallion
{"title":"Evaluation in the Practice of Development","authors":"M. Ravallion","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKP002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge about development effectiveness is constrained by two factors. First, the project staff in governments and international agencies who decide how much to invest in research on specific interventions are often not well informed about the returns to rigorous evaluation and (even when they are) cannot be expected to take full account of the external benefits to others from new knowledge. This leads to under-investment in evaluative research. Second, while standard methods of impact evaluation are useful, they often leave many questions about development effectiveness unanswered. The paper proposes ten steps for making evaluations more relevant to the needs of practitioners. It is argued that more attention needs to be given to identifying policy-relevant questions (including the case for intervention); that a broader approach should be taken to the problems of internal validity; and that the problems of external validity (including scaling up) merit more attention.","PeriodicalId":425296,"journal":{"name":"World Bank: Infrastructure (Topic)","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"200","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank: Infrastructure (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKP002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 200

Abstract

Knowledge about development effectiveness is constrained by two factors. First, the project staff in governments and international agencies who decide how much to invest in research on specific interventions are often not well informed about the returns to rigorous evaluation and (even when they are) cannot be expected to take full account of the external benefits to others from new knowledge. This leads to under-investment in evaluative research. Second, while standard methods of impact evaluation are useful, they often leave many questions about development effectiveness unanswered. The paper proposes ten steps for making evaluations more relevant to the needs of practitioners. It is argued that more attention needs to be given to identifying policy-relevant questions (including the case for intervention); that a broader approach should be taken to the problems of internal validity; and that the problems of external validity (including scaling up) merit more attention.
发展实践中的评价
关于开发有效性的知识受到两个因素的制约。首先,决定在具体干预研究上投资多少的政府和国际机构的项目工作人员往往不了解严格评估的回报(即使他们了解),也不能指望他们充分考虑新知识给他人带来的外部利益。这导致了对评价研究的投资不足。第二,虽然影响评价的标准方法是有用的,但它们往往留下许多关于发展有效性的问题没有答案。本文提出了使评估更符合从业者需求的十个步骤。有人认为,需要更多地注意确定与政策有关的问题(包括干预的情况);应该对内部有效性问题采取更广泛的办法;外部有效性的问题(包括放大)值得更多的关注。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信