影响评价的道德基础

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
H. Henderson
{"title":"影响评价的道德基础","authors":"H. Henderson","doi":"10.1080/19452829.2021.2014424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Impact evaluation has become increasingly central to evidence-based social policy, particularly in the field of international development. While the act of evaluation requires numerous ethical decisions (e.g. regarding the problems to investigate, the tools of investigation, and the interpretation of results), the normative framework for such decisions is generally implicit, undermining our ability to fully scrutinise the evidence base. I argue that the moral foundation of impact evaluation is best viewed as utilitarian in the sense that it meets the three elementary requirements of utilitarianism: welfarism, sum-ranking, and consequentialism. I further argue that the utilitarian approach is subject to a number of important limitations, including distributional indifference, the neglect of non-utility concerns, and an orientation toward subjective states. In light of these issues, I outline an alternative framework for impact evaluation that has its moral basis in the capabilities approach. I argue that capabilitarian impact evaluation not only addresses many of the issues associated with utilitarian methods, but can also be viewed as a more general approach to impact evaluation.","PeriodicalId":46538,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","volume":"23 1","pages":"425 - 454"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Moral Foundations of Impact Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"H. Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19452829.2021.2014424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Impact evaluation has become increasingly central to evidence-based social policy, particularly in the field of international development. While the act of evaluation requires numerous ethical decisions (e.g. regarding the problems to investigate, the tools of investigation, and the interpretation of results), the normative framework for such decisions is generally implicit, undermining our ability to fully scrutinise the evidence base. I argue that the moral foundation of impact evaluation is best viewed as utilitarian in the sense that it meets the three elementary requirements of utilitarianism: welfarism, sum-ranking, and consequentialism. I further argue that the utilitarian approach is subject to a number of important limitations, including distributional indifference, the neglect of non-utility concerns, and an orientation toward subjective states. In light of these issues, I outline an alternative framework for impact evaluation that has its moral basis in the capabilities approach. I argue that capabilitarian impact evaluation not only addresses many of the issues associated with utilitarian methods, but can also be viewed as a more general approach to impact evaluation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"425 - 454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2021.2014424\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2021.2014424","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

影响评估已成为循证社会政策的核心,尤其是在国际发展领域。虽然评估行为需要许多道德决策(例如,关于调查问题、调查工具和结果解释),但此类决策的规范框架通常是隐含的,这削弱了我们全面审查证据基础的能力。我认为,影响评估的道德基础最好被视为功利主义,因为它符合功利主义的三个基本要求:福利主义、总和排名和结果主义。我进一步认为,功利主义的方法受到许多重要的限制,包括分配的冷漠、对非效用关注的忽视以及对主观状态的取向。鉴于这些问题,我概述了影响评估的替代框架,该框架以能力方法为道德基础。我认为,能力影响评估不仅解决了许多与实用方法相关的问题,而且可以被视为一种更通用的影响评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Moral Foundations of Impact Evaluation
ABSTRACT Impact evaluation has become increasingly central to evidence-based social policy, particularly in the field of international development. While the act of evaluation requires numerous ethical decisions (e.g. regarding the problems to investigate, the tools of investigation, and the interpretation of results), the normative framework for such decisions is generally implicit, undermining our ability to fully scrutinise the evidence base. I argue that the moral foundation of impact evaluation is best viewed as utilitarian in the sense that it meets the three elementary requirements of utilitarianism: welfarism, sum-ranking, and consequentialism. I further argue that the utilitarian approach is subject to a number of important limitations, including distributional indifference, the neglect of non-utility concerns, and an orientation toward subjective states. In light of these issues, I outline an alternative framework for impact evaluation that has its moral basis in the capabilities approach. I argue that capabilitarian impact evaluation not only addresses many of the issues associated with utilitarian methods, but can also be viewed as a more general approach to impact evaluation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development is the peer-reviewed journal of the Human Development and Capabilities Association. It was launched in January 2000 to promote new perspectives on challenges of human development, capability expansion, poverty eradication, social justice and human rights. The Journal aims to stimulate innovative development thinking that is based on the premise that development is fundamentally about improving the well-being and agency of people, by expanding the choices and opportunities they have. Accordingly, the Journal recognizes that development is about more than just economic growth and development policy is more than just economic policy: it cuts across economic, social, political and environmental issues. The Journal publishes original work in philosophy, economics, and other social sciences that expand concepts, measurement tools and policy alternatives for human development. It provides a forum for an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of academics, policy makers and development practitioners who are interested in confronting the challenges of human development at global, national and local levels.
×
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