Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
David Potts
(University of Bradford)
Ola Sholarin (University of Westminster)
Send message to Convenors
- Location:
- J19 (Richmond building)
- Start time:
- 8 September, 2017 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
This panel examines the efficacy of development projects, and their contribution to development. How do we know if they contribute to sustainable economic growth or whether the benefits derived from them are shared in an equitable way? Are the methods available to answer such questions actually used?
Long Abstract:
In 2010 the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group produced a substantial report (IEG2010) that found that the proportion of their projects including some form of cost benefit analysis had declined from 70% to 25% while only half of this decline could be attributed to changes in the sectoral nature of projects funded. The underlying implication was that they were getting worse at their job and that this has had potential consequences for the performance of the projects that they finance. While there have been debates about the relative importance of project planning and sector based programmes it remains the case that a very high proportion of investment in development, particularly by development banks, is undertaken through projects. At the same time the focus of academic literature on development has moved away from the viability and sustainability of projects to concentrate on broader policy issues. To what extent are the projects that are financed to promote development sustainable? How effectively do they contribute to economic growth and are the benefits derived from such growth shared in an equitable manner? Are the methodologies available to answer such questions used in practice and if not, why not?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper short abstract:
The quality of development projects influences sustainability, yet within development quality is less visible than other measures. The paper identifies that quality is contingent on hierarchical and contextual factors, which leads to challenges around the function of development projects.
Paper long abstract:
In comparison to other performance measurements used in development, such as impact or accountability, the concept of quality has received relatively little attention. Yet poor quality implementation of projects is well accepted as having a negative effect on sustainable outcomes.
A doctoral study was undertaken with three non-government organisations in Southeast Asia to explore how quality was articulated in development projects. An extensive literature review was completed to construct a relevant concept of quality that can be applied to development practice. This resulted in quality being framed as the dynamic interaction between achievement and expectation.
Observations from this research point towards a layered and contextual comprehension of quality within development. In particular, there are subtle moves towards a more generic approach to development practice, driven largely by program standards, while the specificity of project designs seems to becoming less influential. Furthermore, the articulation of quality appears to be dependent on the hierarchy of staff. Senior management are more focused on organisational (program) standards while project staff consider quality is related to the achievement of targets.
A particular position advanced by this paper is the need to ensure that development remains contextually relevant to communities rather than an organisation perspective. This suggests there should be practical limits on the relative influence between program standards and project designs. This paper concludes with some development policy implications related to role of standards and designs and the application of quality to sustainability.
Paper short abstract:
Mothers' Union Uganda has been working on an iterative participatory process of Church-led community mobilisation called EAGLE based on a co-financing and shared dividends model. This paper argues that this is a stronger model for sustainability than a traditional donor-recipient model.
Paper long abstract:
The lack of scope and lack of multi-causality in many Cost Benefit Analyses, as identified by Chadburn, O et al. (2013), leads to linear assumptions about programmatic interventions. CBA measures the hypothesis of a theory of change and assumes validity in complex systems of societies, when the scope of a CBA prevents such nuance. However, many of these hypotheses are tested in the programmatic cycle, refined and understood as they are contextualised.
This paper is based on four years evidence from our work, EAGLE, which has three core process outputs, firstly, individuals are encouraged to undertake an appreciative enquiry to consider their worldview and cultural norms. Secondly, the Church, as the first cohort of beneficiaries, develop a communicative space through the use of bible studies. Thirdly, they work together with the community to develop local priorities and solutions through a third-person enquiry participatory action research approach.
Whose cost? This process in Uganda has been co-financed with the community. External funding was the seed to support development and training. However, community initiatives and local impact has been funded entirely by communities directly or indirectly. Whose benefit? Usually CBA is for external approval; however, in a co-investment model, when each party invests, they declare that the intervention will reap a dividend. Whose analysis? Analysis is too often extractive by external consultants, however, in a participatory model, analysis is key to the empowerment of communities. In the analysis, communities determine what parameters need analysis in order to reap the highest benefit.