Humanitarian action in developing countries: Who evaluates who?
Humanitarian NGOs and intergovernmental organisations are usually assessed by their funders, not their beneficiaries. In most cases, their evaluation relies on interviews with “professionals”, neglects field surveys, does not use opinion polls and seldom tries to assess the socioeconomic impact of relief. Moreover, it is commissioned by stakeholders at the risk of being judge and party. Such a system brings several conflicts of interest: (1) it needs to be approved by those who are evaluated and so does not deal with “bad eggs” that refuse to be investigated; (2) it produces biased analysis, does not name names and passes over fundamental issues; (3) it is very formal and technocratic, if not meaningless; (4) it does not help to learn from past mistakes. Hence this article proposes a framework to develop third party evaluations. It is suggested that, to be really independent, evaluation should neither be paid or commissioned by stakeholders, i.e. NGOs and institutional funders. To facilitate learning, its methodology and its results must also be available to the general public. To be accepted by those who are evaluated, finally, it should highlight the difficulties, explain the political context, acknowledge its subjectivity, recognize its limits, focus on processes more than results and develop qualitative analysis out of quantitative indicators.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 35 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan|
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.:
- Abigail Barr & Marcel Fafchamps, 2004.
"A Client-Community Assessment of the NGO Sector in Uganda,"
Economics Series Working Papers
WPS/2004-23, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Abigail Barr & Marcel Fafchamps, 2006. "A client-community assessment of the NGO sector in Uganda," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 611-639.
- Abigail Barr & Marcel Fafchamps, 2004. "A client-community assessment of the NGO sector in Uganda," CSAE Working Paper Series 2004-23, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
- Abigail Barr & Marcel Fafchamps, 2004. "A Client-Community Assessment of the NGO Sector in Uganda," Development and Comp Systems 0409069, EconWPA.
- Gibson, Clark C. & Andersson, Krister & Ostrom, The late Elinor & Shivakumar, Sujai, 2005. "The Samaritan's Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199278855, December.
- Gilles Nancy & Boriana Yontcheva, 2006. "Does NGO Aid Go to the Poor? Empirical Evidence from Europe," IMF Working Papers 06/39, International Monetary Fund.
- Cassen, Robert & ,, 1994. "Does Aid Work?: Report to an Intergovernmental Task Force," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198773863, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:35:y:2012:i:1:p:154-160. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.