Understanding the change in complex programmes. Needs and challenges for development aid evaluation after Paris Declaration

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Gabriele Tomei
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2013/56-57
Language Italian Pages 30 P. 141-170 File size 323 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2013-056008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Paris Declaration puts development aid in front of a new complexity, dealing with the need for integrating different policies, activating many different stakeholders, implementing the strategy at different levels. Consequently, evaluation has to dismiss rigid input-output analytical frames and to assume a more responsive methodologies. Using UNDP ART Initiative as a test, the paper suggests how to innovate evaluation with more reflexive and participatory approach based on the inclusion of diverse point of view, the analysis of the possible configurations of context-mechanisms, and the analysis of the process-outcomes dynamics.

Keywords: Development Aid; Aid Effectiveness; Realistic Evaluation; Outcome Mapping; Participative Evaluation; Paris Declaration.

  1. Bakewell O. and Garbutt A. (2005), The Use and Abuse of the Logical Framework Approach, SIDA, Stockholm
  2. Biggeri M. e Volpi F. (2006), Teoria e politica dell'aiuto allo sviluppo, FrancoAngeli, Milano
  3. Black M. (2004), La cooperazione allo sviluppo internazionale, Carocci, Roma
  4. Bottazzi G. (2007), Sviluppo e sottosviluppo. Idee, teorie, speranze e delusioni, Aìsara, Cagliari
  5. Boudon R. (1984), Il posto del disordine. Critica delle teorie del mutamento sociale, Il Mulino, Bologna
  6. Carrino L. (2005), Perle e pirate. Critica della cooperazione allo sviluppo e nuovo multilateralismo, Erickson, Trento Cernea M. (a cura di) (1985), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Development, Oxford University Press for World Bank, New York-London
  7. Chambers R. (1983), Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman, London
  8. Chambers R. (1992), Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory, Discussion Paper 311, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton
  9. Cornia G.A., Jolly R., Stewart F. (1989), Per un aggiustamento dal volto umano: proteggere i gruppi vulnerabili e promuovere la crescita, FrancoAngeli, Milano
  10. Cracknell B.E. (2000), Evaluating Development Aid: Issues, Problems and Solution, Sage Publication, New Delhi
  11. Dabelstein N. e Rebien C.C. (2002), “Evaluation of development assistance: its starts, progress, and current challenges”, in Furubo J.E., Rist R.C. e Sandhal R. (eds.), International Atlas of Evaluation, Transaction Publisher, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 393-405
  12. DAC (1991), Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance, OECD/DAC, Paris
  13. Dollar, D. and Pritchett L. (1998), Assessing Aid. What Works, What Doesn’t and Why, Oxford University Press for World Bank, New York.
  14. Earl S. et al. (2001), Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs, IRDC, Ottawa
  15. Fanciullacci D., Grillo F., Ianni V., Rhi Sausi J.L., Stocchiero A., Zupi M. (1997), Teorie dello sviluppo e nuove forme di cooperazione, Movimondo, Roma
  16. Feinstein O. and Picciotto R. (eds.) (2000), Evaluation and Poverty Reduction: Proceedings from a World Bank Conference, World Bank, Washington
  17. Forss K., Marra M., Schwartz R. (eds.) (2011), Evaluating the Complex. Attribution, Contribution and Beyond, Transaction Publishers, Somerset, NJ
  18. Gori U. (2003), La cooperazione allo sviluppo. Errori e illusioni di un mito, FrancoAngeli, Milano
  19. Ianni V. (1999), La cooperazione decentrata allo sviluppo umano, Rosemberg&Sellier, Torino
  20. Ianni V. (a cura di), (2004), Verso una nuova visione dell’aiuto. Le Autonomie locali nella cooperazione internazionale allo sviluppo, ANCI, Roma
  21. Ianni V. (2011), Dizionario della cooperazione internazionale allo sviluppo. Una mappa per orientarsi nei rapporti Nord-Sud, Carocci, Roma
  22. Leeuw F. e Vaessen J. (2009), Impact Evaluations and Development. NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation, The World Bank, Washington, DC
  23. Lo Presti V. (2013), "Positive Thinking and Learning from Evaluation" (con N. Stame), in Bohni-Nielsen S., Turksema R. e Van del Knaap P., Evaluation and Success, Transaction Publisher, New Brunswick, NJ
  24. McMichael (2006), Ascesa e declino dello sviluppo. Una prospettiva globale, FrancoAngeli, Milano
  25. Mellano M. e Zupi M. (2007), Economia e politica della cooperazione allo sviluppo, Laterza, Bari
  26. Nagao M. (2006), “Challenging times for evaluation of international development assistance”, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6(2)
  27. NORAD (1999), The Logical Framework Approach (LFA). Handbook for objective-oriented planning. Fourth edition, NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Oslo
  28. Patton M.Q. (2012), “Metaevaluation: Evaluating The Evaluation of The Paris Declaration”, The Canadian Journal of Programme Evaluation, 27(3)
  29. Pawson R. and Tilley N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, Sage, London
  30. Pawson R., Boaz A. (2006), Evidence-based policy, theory-based synthesis, user-led reviews, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, London.
  31. Raimondi A. e Antonelli G. (2001), Manuale di Cooperazione allo Sviluppo. Linee evolutive, spunti problematici, prospettive, SEI, Torino
  32. Rist G. (1997), Lo sviluppo. Storia di una credenza occidentale, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino Rogers P. (2008), “Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions”, Evaluation, 14(1)
  33. Serra N. e Stiglitz J.E. (2008), The Washington Consensus Reconsidered. Toward a New Global Governance, Oxford University Press, New York
  34. Stern E. et al. (2008), The Paris Declaration, Aid Effectiveness and Development Effectiveness; DaRa, Madrid. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Copenhagen
  35. Stern E. et al. (2012), Broadening the range of design and methods for impact evaluations, DFID Working Paper n.38,
  36. Stiglitz J.E. (2006), La globalizzazione e i suoi oppositori, Einaudi, Torino
  37. Tomei G. (2012), Cooperazione allo sviluppo nell'era della globalizzazione. Un'opportunità di networking transnazionale tra attori e sistemi locali, in T.Telleschi (a cura di), L'officina della Pace. Potere, conflitto e cooperazione, PLUS Pisa University Press, Pisa
  38. UNDP (2000), Result Based Management. Concept and Methodologies, UNDP, New York
  39. UNDP (2009), Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, UNDP, New York
  40. UNDP (2010), Evaluation of Undp Contribution to Strengthening Local Governance, UNDP, New York
  41. UNDP (2011a), Updated guidance on Evaluation in the Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results (2009), UNDP, New York
  42. UNDP (2011b), ART Annual Report 2011. Enabling Processes for Effective Development Cooperation at the Local Level, UNDP, Geneve
  43. UNDP Ecuador e SETECI (2010). Eficacia de la cooperación internacional a nivel local. El valor añadido del Programa Marco ART/PNUD Ecuador (2008-2010), Cuenca
  44. UNDP Ecuador e SETECI (2013), Medición de la eficacia de la cooperación al desarrollo a nivel local. Ecuador, Quito
  45. Weiss C. (1998), Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NY
  46. White H. (2009), “Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice”, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1(3)
  47. Williamson, J (1989), “What Washington Means by Policy Reform”, in Williamson J. (ed.), Latin American Readjustment: How Much has Happened, Institute for International Economics, Washington
  48. Wood. B. et al. (2011), The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2, Final Report, DANIDA, Copenhagen

  • La valutazione della cooperazione allo sviluppo in Italia: pratiche e prospettive Valeria Saggiomo, Laura Fantini, in RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 85/2024 pp.108
    DOI: 10.3280/RIV2023-085006

Gabriele Tomei, Comprendere il cambiamento nei programmi complessi. Necessità e sfide per la valutazione dell'aiuto allo sviluppo dopo la Dichiarazione di Parigi in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 56-57/2013, pp 141-170, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2013-056008