Accountability versus learning in aid evaluation: A practice-oriented exploration of persistent dilemmas

We analyse qualitative data collected from employees at Germany’s two main international development organisations, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) Development Bank, to study how upward accountability and organisational learning interact in the world’s second largest foreign aid system. Goffman’s ‘staging’ heuristic is applied to unpack social practices in these two organisations. We find that employees navigate two separate domains, a frontstage and a backstage. They consider the federal bureaucracy an audience expecting a coherent storyline despite the messy realities of foreign aid. In response, they engage in impression management on a frontstage while shielding their backstages from scrutiny to maximise autonomy. As a result, organisational learning at GIZ and KfW in Goffman’s terms focuses on collective efficacy at satisfying accountability expectations through staged performances. We relate these insights to the hierarchical structure of Germany’s foreign aid system, the role of organisational interests and prevailing professional norms.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are accountability and organisational learning related? A study of German bilateral development cooperation

Esser,

Janus

2023

“…It is a common approach in other applied sciences, but because it can be applied in so many different contexts, to our knowledge, there is no methodological description. In particular, although not exclusive, impact-oriented accompanying research would help improve the impact of evaluations in terms of learning (Reinertsen et al, 2022).…”

Section: Impact-oriented Accompanying Research: a Format To Address T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation practice in development cooperation has undergone a rapid change over the last decades (White, 2019). Today, the array of existing evidence and the variety of methods used to generate this evidence have increased and improved remarkably (Manning et al, 2023; Reinertsen et al, 2022). Yet, significant knowledge gaps remain, and there is a lack of comparable and generalisable knowledge about what works in development policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What works in democracy support? How to fill evidence and usability gaps through evaluation

Leininger,

Schiller

2023

The evidence generated and used in development cooperation has changed remarkably over the last decades. When it comes to the field of democracy support, these developments have been less significant. Routinised, evidence-based programming is far from a reality here. Compared to other fields, the goals of the interventions and assumed theories of change remain underspecified. Under these circumstances, evaluating and learning is difficult, and as a result, evidence gaps remain large and the translation of evidence into action often unsuccessful. This is particularly dramatic at a time when this field is regaining attention amid global autocratisation trends. In this article, we analyse the specific barriers and challenges democracy support faces to generate and use evidence. Furthermore, we identify evidence gaps and propose impact-oriented accompanying research as an evaluation approach that can make a significant contribution towards advancing the evidence agenda in this field.

“…The first paradox we identify is the paradox of purpose. This paradox is generally well-known within the evaluation community and refers to contradiction between two classic functions of M&E systems: that of learning and that of accountability (Reinertsen et al, 2022). This contradiction arises from the dual purpose that M&E systems usually serve.…”

Section: The Paradox Of Purpose-balancing Learning and Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating competing demands in monitoring and evaluation: Five key paradoxes

Faling,

Schouten,

Vellema

2023

Evaluation in complex programs assembling multiple actors and combining various interventions faces contradictory requirements. In this article, we take a management perspective to show how to recognize and accommodate these contradictory elements as paradoxes. Through reflective practice we identify five paradoxes, each consisting of two contradicting logics: the paradox of purpose—between accountability and learning; the paradox of position—between autonomy and involvement; the paradox of permeability—between openness and closedness; the paradox of method—between rigor and flexibility; and the paradox of acceptance—between credibility and feasibility. We infer the paradoxes from our work in monitoring and evaluation and action research embedded in 2SCALE, a program working on inclusive agribusiness and food security in a complex environment. The intractable nature of paradoxes means they cannot be permanently resolved. Making productive use of paradoxes most likely raises new contradictions, which merit a continuous acknowledging and accommodating for well-functioning monitoring and evaluation systems.