Equity Implications in Evaluating Development Aid: The Italian Case

M. Forestieri
{"title":"Equity Implications in Evaluating Development Aid: The Italian Case","authors":"M. Forestieri","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v16i34.537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In the field of development aid, social equity is an emerging issue that concerns the evaluation community in its theoretical and practical dimensions. \nPurpose: A widely held belief is that evaluators do not apply theory. In this paper, we intend to verify this statement about equity in the field of cooperation projects. \nSetting: Not applicable. \nIntervention: Not applicable. \nResearch Design: We considered equity-focused approaches and found three common factors: stakeholder participation, attention to context, and focus on marginalized groups. These elements operate as screening criteria in identifying equity issues in a case study. \nData Collection and Analysis: The paper examines a practical experience of Italian cooperation. This involved a review of evaluations reports completed between 2013 and 2014. The reports are analyzed according to the three screening criteria. \nFindings: The use of the three criteria has proved its worth in grasping the issues of equity neglected and often not recognized in reports. Once again a gap emerges between theory and practice. The availability of theoretical approaches is not sufficient. The paper, therefore, proposes a reflection on the responsibility of evaluation towards social justice. \nKeywords: social equity; development aid; theory and practice gap.","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":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v16i34.537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: In the field of development aid, social equity is an emerging issue that concerns the evaluation community in its theoretical and practical dimensions. Purpose: A widely held belief is that evaluators do not apply theory. In this paper, we intend to verify this statement about equity in the field of cooperation projects. Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable. Research Design: We considered equity-focused approaches and found three common factors: stakeholder participation, attention to context, and focus on marginalized groups. These elements operate as screening criteria in identifying equity issues in a case study. Data Collection and Analysis: The paper examines a practical experience of Italian cooperation. This involved a review of evaluations reports completed between 2013 and 2014. The reports are analyzed according to the three screening criteria. Findings: The use of the three criteria has proved its worth in grasping the issues of equity neglected and often not recognized in reports. Once again a gap emerges between theory and practice. The availability of theoretical approaches is not sufficient. The paper, therefore, proposes a reflection on the responsibility of evaluation towards social justice. Keywords: social equity; development aid; theory and practice gap.
评估发展援助的公平含义:以意大利为例
背景:在发展援助领域,社会公平是一个新兴的问题,它在理论和实践方面都与评价界有关。目的:一个广泛持有的信念是评估者不应用理论。在本文中,我们打算在合作项目领域验证这一关于股权的说法。设置:不适用。干预:不适用。研究设计:我们考虑了以股权为中心的方法,并发现了三个共同因素:利益相关者参与、对背景的关注和对边缘化群体的关注。这些要素在个案研究中作为甄别公平问题的标准。数据收集与分析:本文考察了意大利合作的实践经验。这涉及对2013年至2014年之间完成的评估报告的审查。报告是根据三个筛选标准进行分析的。调查结果:使用这三个标准已证明其在把握报告中被忽视和往往未被承认的公平问题方面的价值。理论与实践之间又一次出现了差距。理论方法的可用性是不够的。因此,本文提出了评价对社会公正责任的思考。关键词:社会公平;发展援助;理论与实践的差距。
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