{"title":"Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research.","authors":"Heidi Peterson","doi":"10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research for development (R4D) funding is increasingly expected to demonstrate value for money (VfM). However, the dominance of positivist approaches to evaluating VfM, such as cost-benefit analysis, do not fully account for the complexity of R4D funds and risk undermining efforts to contribute to transformational development. This paper posits an alternative approach to evaluating VfM, using the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund as case studies. Based on a constructivist approach to valuing outcomes, this approach applies a collaboratively developed rubric-based peer review to a sample of projects. This is more appropriate for the complexity of R4D interventions, particularly when considering uncertain and emergent outcomes over a long timeframe. This approach could be adapted to other complex interventions, demonstrating that our options are not merely \"CBA or the highway\" and there are indeed alternative routes to evaluating VfM.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7.</p>","PeriodicalId":47650,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Development Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9589702/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Development Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research for development (R4D) funding is increasingly expected to demonstrate value for money (VfM). However, the dominance of positivist approaches to evaluating VfM, such as cost-benefit analysis, do not fully account for the complexity of R4D funds and risk undermining efforts to contribute to transformational development. This paper posits an alternative approach to evaluating VfM, using the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund as case studies. Based on a constructivist approach to valuing outcomes, this approach applies a collaboratively developed rubric-based peer review to a sample of projects. This is more appropriate for the complexity of R4D interventions, particularly when considering uncertain and emergent outcomes over a long timeframe. This approach could be adapted to other complex interventions, demonstrating that our options are not merely "CBA or the highway" and there are indeed alternative routes to evaluating VfM.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Development Research (EJDR) redefines and modernises what international development is, recognising the many schools of thought on what human development constitutes. It encourages debate between competing approaches to understanding global development and international social development. The journal is multidisciplinary and welcomes papers that are rooted in any mixture of fields including (but not limited to): development studies, international studies, social policy, sociology, politics, economics, anthropology, education, sustainability, business and management. EJDR explicitly links with development studies, being hosted by European Association of Development Institutes (EADI) and its various initiatives.
As a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal, we particularly welcome submissions that improve our conceptual understanding of international development processes, or submissions that propose policy and developmental tools by analysing empirical evidence, whether qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods or anecdotal (data use in the journal ranges broadly from narratives and transcripts, through ethnographic and mixed data, to quantitative and survey data). The research methods used in the journal''s articles make explicit the importance of empirical data and the critical interpretation of findings. Authors can use a mixture of theory and data analysis to expand the possibilities for global development.
Submissions must be well-grounded in theory and must also indicate how their findings are relevant to development practitioners in the field and/or policy makers. The journal encourages papers which embody the highest quality standards, and which use an innovative approach. We urge authors who contemplate submitting their work to the EJDR to respond to research already published in this journal, as well as complementary journals and books. We take special efforts to include global voices, and notably voices from the global South. Queries about potential submissions to EJDR can be directed to the Editors.
EJDR understands development to be an ongoing process that affects all communities, societies, states and regions: We therefore do not have a geographical bias, but wherever possible prospective authors should seek to highlight how their study has relevance to researchers and practitioners studying development in different environments. Although many of the papers we publish examine the challenges for developing countries, we recognize that there are important lessons to be derived from the experiences of regions in the developed world.
The EJDR is print-published 6 times a year, in a mix of regular and special theme issues; accepted papers are published on an ongoing basis online. We accept submissions in English and French.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
