A Review of the DAC Evaluation Criteria: Upgrading Efficiency

Joaquin De la Concha
{"title":"A Review of the DAC Evaluation Criteria: Upgrading Efficiency","authors":"Joaquin De la Concha","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v16i34.587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Efficiency has remained for long time the Cinderella of evaluation practice. According to several meta-evaluations only a small number of evaluations include robust and meaningful assessments in this field. \nPurpose: Following the review of the Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) evaluation criteria this article reviews the main causes of efficiency remaining in a secondary role in evaluation practices and proposes: 1) upgrading it through broadening the current economic definition of efficiency, and 2) proposing a set of four evaluation dimensions revolving around the principle of sound financial management, social perceived value, result-based budgeting and interconnectedness with other criteria. \nSetting: Not applicable. \nIntervention: Not applicable. \nResearch design: Literature review and empirical pilot testing of proposed evaluation methodology. \nData collection & analysis: Qualitative analysis. \nFindings: This paper calls for a shift in focus from efficiency to a broader enriched principle of sound financial management including a strong partner-based focus and highlighting management as a pre- condition “sine qua non” for an intervention to be efficient. Efficiency assessments would then be twofold: managerial (procedures, policies and practices that lay out the requirements for efficiency to take place) and substantial (context, circumstances and reasoning for the existing budget balance between results and target groups). The key aspects of the proposal involve four proposed dimensions to be analysed under this renewed criteria that imply audits and evaluations come much closer and look at each other. \nKeywords: DAC evaluation criteria; efficiency; economy; equity; sound financial management; performance audit.","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v16i34.587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Efficiency has remained for long time the Cinderella of evaluation practice. According to several meta-evaluations only a small number of evaluations include robust and meaningful assessments in this field. Purpose: Following the review of the Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) evaluation criteria this article reviews the main causes of efficiency remaining in a secondary role in evaluation practices and proposes: 1) upgrading it through broadening the current economic definition of efficiency, and 2) proposing a set of four evaluation dimensions revolving around the principle of sound financial management, social perceived value, result-based budgeting and interconnectedness with other criteria. Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable. Research design: Literature review and empirical pilot testing of proposed evaluation methodology. Data collection & analysis: Qualitative analysis. Findings: This paper calls for a shift in focus from efficiency to a broader enriched principle of sound financial management including a strong partner-based focus and highlighting management as a pre- condition “sine qua non” for an intervention to be efficient. Efficiency assessments would then be twofold: managerial (procedures, policies and practices that lay out the requirements for efficiency to take place) and substantial (context, circumstances and reasoning for the existing budget balance between results and target groups). The key aspects of the proposal involve four proposed dimensions to be analysed under this renewed criteria that imply audits and evaluations come much closer and look at each other. Keywords: DAC evaluation criteria; efficiency; economy; equity; sound financial management; performance audit.
DAC评价标准述评:提升效率
背景:长期以来,效率一直是评价实践中的灰姑娘。根据几项元评价,只有少数评价包括这一领域可靠和有意义的评价。目的:在审查了发展援助委员会(发援会)的评价标准之后,本文审查了在评价实践中效率仍然处于次要地位的主要原因,并建议:1)通过拓宽目前对效率的经济学定义来升级效率;2)围绕健全的财务管理原则、社会感知价值、基于结果的预算以及与其他标准的相互联系,提出一套四个评估维度。设置:不适用。干预:不适用。研究设计:文献回顾和实证试点测试提出的评价方法。数据收集与分析:定性分析。研究结果:本文呼吁将重点从效率转移到更广泛的丰富的健全财务管理原则,包括以合作伙伴为基础的强烈关注,并强调管理是干预有效的先决条件。效率评价将是双重的:管理的(规定实现效率所需条件的程序、政策和做法)和实质性的(结果和目标群体之间现有预算平衡的背景、情况和理由)。该建议的关键方面涉及根据这一新的标准分析的拟议的四个方面,这意味着审计和评价更加密切并相互联系。关键词:DAC评价标准;效率;经济;股本;健全的财务管理;绩效审计。
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