With the rise of neoliberalism, a corporate-dominated state-assisted deregulated growth strategy, which has caught most countries in the throes of what can be termed a 'growth trap', has indeed yielded significant economic gains for many but has also entailed inexorable social, moral and environmental adversities.This paper argues that the reason we experience the incongruities between economic growth and social nourishing is the fact that we treat economy over society as our end goal. We regard economic growth as the end-all sum. Given the social and other costs this obsession with growth has inflicted upon societies, it is important that we escape the neoliberal growth trap and recalibrate our focus from the economy to society, to ensure that neither growth nor 'development', but rather formation of what this paper terms 'good societies', those that nurture and thrive on values of equity, empathy, social justice and environmental sustainability, should be the end goal.By drawing lessons from several philosophical and practical ideas, the paper offers policy options relevant to the implementation of the 'good society' concept both within and across nations.

No abstract

No abstract

Most developing countries now have monitoring and evaluation systems in place. However, most systems are concerned with the progress of implementation, rather than assessing the social, economic and environmental impacts of projects. Also, there seem to be no systems that assess the impact of policy interventions emerging from recent macro-level measures, such as liberalization, privatization, and the preservation of women's rights. In developing countries, donor agencies have played a role in planning, implementing and financing various socio-economic development programs and projects. In many cases, the outcomes of these interventions do not match the intended objectives. It has been argued that due to the lack of ongoing evaluation many governments fail to learn, in time, the way a project is unfolding and the manner in which it is generating benefits. There are also many who simply do not see the benefits of evaluation and consider it to be a donor-driven activity of no management use. Those donors who do see evaluation as an important tool to improve investment quality are now initiating evaluation capacity building activities. The success of these initiatives seems to have been constrained, among other things, by the lack of a unified approach; inadequate appreciation and analysis of governmental culture; confusion about concepts and methodologies; lack of long-term commitment; and lack of either interest or resources—or both—from the recipient governments. Future evaluation capacity building work will need to make a careful analysis of these constraints and approach the subject with far greater sensitivity and technical knowledge.

No abstract