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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evaluation (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2018-01, Vol.24 (1), p.98-112
1. Verfasser: Kogen, Lauren
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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