In my previous post I started to make the case for the evaluation of transformative change and transformative development in a way that recognises the differences between what we call the Global South and Global North, and that then shapes our practice accordingly - including our evaluation questions and criteria. Viewing
Now that the concept of "developing" and "developed" countries is at last unfashionable, is a special focus on "development evaluation" still useful? Is the less emotive, more palatable Global South / Global North terminology more appropriate, and what does this mean for how and what
The many discussions I have recently had about the effort that is now in place to get to DAC evaluation criteria 2.0 have prompted me to write a few more posts in this series. It will also be a bridge between the earlier series and my new posts on
This final post about the DAC criteria captures key points for consideration in the evaluation for development space. It is also relevant for the interface between humanitarian work and development - an increasingly important area of work. Refined DAC criteria, or something completely new? This question needs careful consideration. For me
It is ironic that evaluation has been unable to prevent - or even just sufficiently critique - some of the most damaging policies and strategies that have originated in both economically rich and poor countries. What should evaluators have done to prevent at least some of the destruction wreaked upon countries in
Our development evaluation criteria should not be determined solely by stakeholder-determined interests, or by pragmatism resulting from constrained resources. Development of nation-states is a complicated matter. If we are serious about ensuring that evaluation plays an effective role in it, there are questions and criteria that we should
It will be unwise only to 'fix' in an ad hoc manner the weaknesses in the composition and application of the current set of DAC criteria. We need to consider carefully on what conceptual basis we select and define our criteria for the evaluation of interventions, or portfolios
Given the good contributions of the DAC criteria noted in Part 1 of this series, let us now turn to why they need to be rethought. Based on my experience, I draw the following conclusions about requirements for evaluation criteria suitable for (sustainable) development contexts. We need a set of
The highly influential DAC evaluation criteria need to be revised. Some say reformed. What will modernised evaluation criteria for development look like? On what basis would we establish such criteria? How will we ensure that they suit different contexts, yet compel evaluation commissioners and evaluators to focus on what matters
These days we talk a lot about “sustainable development”. And about “evaluating impact”. But I continue to maintain that it is useless to evaluate the impacts of an intervention without focusing on whether such impacts have a good chance to sustain.
