To 'feel good', or to 'do good'? Why we need institutional changes to ensure a results focus in Norwegian development assistance

Norway is a generous donor in terms of funding and has been categorised as a donor mainly motivated by altruism. Nevertheless, the Norwegian aid administration has been criticised for not sufficiently measuring and demonstrating the effects of its development assistance. This is unfortunate as we may miss opportunities for learning and end up with lower aid effectiveness. In this article, we discuss why an altruistic donor may fail to document the consequences of aid for beneficiaries. The crux of our argument is that there are two types of altruistic motivation for aid: a 'feel good' type where focus is on the virtue of donating and a 'do good' type where focus is on the effects of aid for beneficiaries. We use the agency framework to analyse these dynamics and argue that if the 'feel good' motivation dominates, the institutions within which the aid administration operates will favour disbursements, whereas if the 'do good' motivation dominates, institutions will be geared towards documenting consequences and effects. The first may result in lower welfare for beneficiaries if aid is less effective. While altruism cannot be observed, the current institutional set-up of the Norwegian aid administration is compatible with the 'feel good' type as the dominant motivation for development assistance. However, a stronger results focus may not improve matters unless also accompanied with institutional changes to ensure the evaluability of aid. As long as the dominant motivation is to 'feel good', stronger results focus may simply shift aid to where it can most easily be measured rather than where potential to do good is greatest.