What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice
In recent decades, development donors in the West have touted a shift to rigorous evaluations and evidence-based policymaking in order to address global skepticism regarding the effectiveness of aid. In the accompanying rhetoric, “accountability” and “learning” have been held up as twin pillars that...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evaluation (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2018-01, Vol.24 (1), p.98-112 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 112 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 98 |
container_title | Evaluation (London, England. 1995) |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Kogen, Lauren |
description | In recent decades, development donors in the West have touted a shift to rigorous evaluations and evidence-based policymaking in order to address global skepticism regarding the effectiveness of aid. In the accompanying rhetoric, “accountability” and “learning” have been held up as twin pillars that will ensure a more effective aid-making system. This contribution questions the ability of these concepts to improve aid in their current working forms. The contribution offers a revised conceptualization of learning in order to improve funding and funding policy. The revised definition supports two particular areas in which “learning” is sorely needed but which are eschewed in most current institutionalized evaluation rhetoric: developing theory undergirding social change (such as theories relating to gender-based violence) and evaluating project design and implementation processes (such as participatory designs). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1356389017750195 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1989466367</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1356389017750195</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1989466367</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-cb88a3fe7576bbba450837e6ce307b00d7dbf0ee4839a07226bbe6e860f8b90e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3jwHPq5Nm87EnkaJVKKigeFyS7GybsmZrslX635tSDyJ4mgfze2-GR8g5g0vGlLpiXEiuK8haAKvEARmxUrJCMcEPs87rYrc_JicprQCYnAg2Ik9vSzPQpflE-oW0QxMDNnSJEa_p8wbT4Pvgw4Ia5_pNGIz1nR-21AdqfEPXfefdlpqQZTRu8A5PyVFruoRnP3NMXu9uX6b3xfxx9jC9mReOCzYUzmpteItKKGmtNaUAzRVKhxyUBWhUY1tALDWvDKjJJFMoUUtota0A-Zhc7HPXsf_YPVqv-k0M-WTNKl2VUnKpMgV7ysU-pYhtvY7-3cRtzaDe9Vb_7S1bir0lmQX-Cv2P_waqa2zX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1989466367</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sage Journals</source><creator>Kogen, Lauren</creator><creatorcontrib>Kogen, Lauren</creatorcontrib><description>In recent decades, development donors in the West have touted a shift to rigorous evaluations and evidence-based policymaking in order to address global skepticism regarding the effectiveness of aid. In the accompanying rhetoric, “accountability” and “learning” have been held up as twin pillars that will ensure a more effective aid-making system. This contribution questions the ability of these concepts to improve aid in their current working forms. The contribution offers a revised conceptualization of learning in order to improve funding and funding policy. The revised definition supports two particular areas in which “learning” is sorely needed but which are eschewed in most current institutionalized evaluation rhetoric: developing theory undergirding social change (such as theories relating to gender-based violence) and evaluating project design and implementation processes (such as participatory designs).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1356-3890</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1461-7153</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1356389017750195</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Concept formation ; Donors ; Gender-based violence ; Policy making ; Rhetoric ; Social change</subject><ispartof>Evaluation (London, England. 1995), 2018-01, Vol.24 (1), p.98-112</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-cb88a3fe7576bbba450837e6ce307b00d7dbf0ee4839a07226bbe6e860f8b90e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-cb88a3fe7576bbba450837e6ce307b00d7dbf0ee4839a07226bbe6e860f8b90e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1356389017750195$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1356389017750195$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21799,27845,27903,27904,30978,43600,43601</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kogen, Lauren</creatorcontrib><title>What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice</title><title>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</title><description>In recent decades, development donors in the West have touted a shift to rigorous evaluations and evidence-based policymaking in order to address global skepticism regarding the effectiveness of aid. In the accompanying rhetoric, “accountability” and “learning” have been held up as twin pillars that will ensure a more effective aid-making system. This contribution questions the ability of these concepts to improve aid in their current working forms. The contribution offers a revised conceptualization of learning in order to improve funding and funding policy. The revised definition supports two particular areas in which “learning” is sorely needed but which are eschewed in most current institutionalized evaluation rhetoric: developing theory undergirding social change (such as theories relating to gender-based violence) and evaluating project design and implementation processes (such as participatory designs).</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Concept formation</subject><subject>Donors</subject><subject>Gender-based violence</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Social change</subject><issn>1356-3890</issn><issn>1461-7153</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKt3jwHPq5Nm87EnkaJVKKigeFyS7GybsmZrslX635tSDyJ4mgfze2-GR8g5g0vGlLpiXEiuK8haAKvEARmxUrJCMcEPs87rYrc_JicprQCYnAg2Ik9vSzPQpflE-oW0QxMDNnSJEa_p8wbT4Pvgw4Ia5_pNGIz1nR-21AdqfEPXfefdlpqQZTRu8A5PyVFruoRnP3NMXu9uX6b3xfxx9jC9mReOCzYUzmpteItKKGmtNaUAzRVKhxyUBWhUY1tALDWvDKjJJFMoUUtota0A-Zhc7HPXsf_YPVqv-k0M-WTNKl2VUnKpMgV7ysU-pYhtvY7-3cRtzaDe9Vb_7S1bir0lmQX-Cv2P_waqa2zX</recordid><startdate>201801</startdate><enddate>201801</enddate><creator>Kogen, Lauren</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201801</creationdate><title>What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice</title><author>Kogen, Lauren</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-cb88a3fe7576bbba450837e6ce307b00d7dbf0ee4839a07226bbe6e860f8b90e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Concept formation</topic><topic>Donors</topic><topic>Gender-based violence</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Social change</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kogen, Lauren</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kogen, Lauren</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation (London, England. 1995)</jtitle><date>2018-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>98</spage><epage>112</epage><pages>98-112</pages><issn>1356-3890</issn><eissn>1461-7153</eissn><abstract>In recent decades, development donors in the West have touted a shift to rigorous evaluations and evidence-based policymaking in order to address global skepticism regarding the effectiveness of aid. In the accompanying rhetoric, “accountability” and “learning” have been held up as twin pillars that will ensure a more effective aid-making system. This contribution questions the ability of these concepts to improve aid in their current working forms. The contribution offers a revised conceptualization of learning in order to improve funding and funding policy. The revised definition supports two particular areas in which “learning” is sorely needed but which are eschewed in most current institutionalized evaluation rhetoric: developing theory undergirding social change (such as theories relating to gender-based violence) and evaluating project design and implementation processes (such as participatory designs).</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1356389017750195</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1356-3890 |
ispartof | Evaluation (London, England. 1995), 2018-01, Vol.24 (1), p.98-112 |
issn | 1356-3890 1461-7153 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1989466367 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); PAIS Index; Sage Journals |
subjects | Accountability Concept formation Donors Gender-based violence Policy making Rhetoric Social change |
title | What have we learned here? Questioning accountability in aid policy and practice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T21%3A12%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20have%20we%20learned%20here?%20Questioning%20accountability%20in%20aid%20policy%20and%20practice&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20(London,%20England.%201995)&rft.au=Kogen,%20Lauren&rft.date=2018-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=98&rft.epage=112&rft.pages=98-112&rft.issn=1356-3890&rft.eissn=1461-7153&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1356389017750195&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1989466367%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1989466367&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1356389017750195&rfr_iscdi=true |