Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Credible evidence on complex change processes: key challenges in impact evaluation on agricultural value chains

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ton, Giel
  • Vellema, Sietze
  • DeRuyterDeWildt, Marieke
Registered author(s):

Abstract

Although a growing field of policy intervention, the effectiveness of public-private value chain support is regularly questioned in the policy realm. Partly resulting from stronger pressures on aid money to show its worth, convincing evidence is asked for the effect on poverty alleviation. However, impact evaluations of interventions are challenging: outcome indicators are often multi-dimensional, impact is generated in dynamic and open systems and the external validity of conclusions are often limited, due to contextual particularities. Therefore, there is a strong case for theory-based evaluation where logic models indicate how the intervention is expected to influence the incentives for people’s behaviour. The key assumptions inherent in these casual models can be tested through observation and measurement of specific outcome indicators, using mixed methods in triangulation. The mix of methods will have to anticipate the major threats to validity to the type of evaluative conclusion that the evaluation is expected to generate .Following the work of Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002), validity threats relate to: 1) statistical conclusion validity; 2) internal validity; 3) construct validity; and, 4) external validity. The authors propose the combined use of data-set observations and causal-process observations in a comparative case-study design, based on critical realist concept of contextmechanism-outcome configurations. The use of a realist method to describe and analyze intervention pilots, facilitates the exchange of experiences between development agencies with evidence-based research. Its defined generalisation domain may prevent uncritical embracement of good practices. Certain value chain upgrading strategies may be viable and effective in a range of situations but are not the panacea, the standard solution, for creating market access; they all involve specific institutional arrangements that ‘fire’ specific mechanisms and incentives that depend on the institutional environment and social capital of stakeholders involved.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32027/
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 32027.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jun 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:32027

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: rural development; mixed methods; attribution; organisational performance; realist evaluation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2007. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," CEPR Discussion Papers 6059, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Norman Blaikie, 1991. "A critique of the use of triangulation in social research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 115-136, May.
  3. Chiu, Yung-ho & Huang, Chin-wei & Ma, Chun-Mei, 2011. "Assessment of China transit and economic efficiencies in a modified value-chains DEA model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(2), pages 95-103, March.
  4. Ton, Giel, 2008. "Challenges for smallholder market access: a review of literature on institutional arrangements in collective marketing," MPRA Paper 33329, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  5. Maredia, Mywish K., 2009. "Improving the proof: Evolution of and emerging trends in impact assessment methods and approaches in agricultural development," IFPRI discussion papers 929, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  6. Tony Lawson, 2009. "Applied economics, contrast explanation and asymmetric information," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 405-419, May.
  7. Borgen, Svein Ole, 2004. "Rethinking incentive problems in cooperative organizations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 383-393, September.
  8. Ravallion Martin, 2009. "Should the Randomistas Rule?," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-5, February.
  9. Patricia Rogers, 2009. "Matching impact evaluation design to the nature of the intervention and the purpose of the evaluation," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 217-226.
  10. Chris Cornforth, 2004. "The Governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: a paradox perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 11-32, 03.
  11. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702766.
  12. Cook, Michael L., 1994. "The Role of Management Behavior in Agricultural Cooperatives," Journal of Agricultural Cooperation, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, vol. 9.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:32027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.