IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v35y2023i2d10.1057_s41287-022-00565-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research

Author

Listed:
  • Heidi Peterson

    (Clear Horizon
    University of Bath)

Abstract

Research for development (R4D) funding is increasingly expected to demonstrate value for money (VfM). However, the dominance of positivist approaches to evaluating VfM, such as cost-benefit analysis, do not fully account for the complexity of R4D funds and risk undermining efforts to contribute to transformational development. This paper posits an alternative approach to evaluating VfM, using the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund as case studies. Based on a constructivist approach to valuing outcomes, this approach applies a collaboratively developed rubric-based peer review to a sample of projects. This is more appropriate for the complexity of R4D interventions, particularly when considering uncertain and emergent outcomes over a long timeframe. This approach could be adapted to other complex interventions, demonstrating that our options are not merely “CBA or the highway” and there are indeed alternative routes to evaluating VfM.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-022-00565-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-022-00565-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank, Robert H, 2000. "Why Is Cost-Benefit Analysis So Controversial?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 913-930, June.
    2. Kopp, Raymond J. & Krupnick, Alan J. & Toman, Michael, 1997. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform: An Assessment of the Science and the Art," Discussion Papers 10851, Resources for the Future.
    3. Chris Barnett & Laura Camfield, 2016. "Ethics in evaluation," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 528-534, October.
    4. Hausman,Daniel M., 2008. "Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521060141.
    5. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    6. Ekboir, Javier, 2003. "Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 166-184, November.
    7. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    8. repec:eme:mrn000:01409170210782990 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hausman,Daniel M., 2008. "The Philosophy of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521883504.
    10. Marleen Kerkhof & Annemarie Groot & Marien Borgstein & Leontien Bos-Gorter, 2010. "Moving beyond the numbers: a participatory evaluation of sustainability in Dutch agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 307-319, September.
    11. E. Jane Davidson, 2014. "Evaluative Reasoning: Methodological Briefs - Impact Evaluation No. 4," Papers innpub749, Methodological Briefs.
    12. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Nussbaum, Martha C, 2000. "The Costs of Tragedy: Some Moral Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1005-1036, June.
    14. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-952, June.
    15. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    16. Bozeman, Barry & Youtie, Jan, 2017. "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1398.
    17. Hausman,Daniel M., 2008. "The Philosophy of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521709842.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johannes Emmerling & Paula Navarro & Matthew R. Sisco, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being at the Macro Level—Empirics and Future Scenarios," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 899-928, October.
    2. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    3. Cheney Shreve, 2016. "Economic Efficiency or Gender Equality: Conceptualizing an Equitable “Social Framing” for Economic Evaluations to Support Gender Equality in Disaster Risk- and Environmental-Management Decision-Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Loïc Sauce, 2017. "Market process(es) and (un)knowledge," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 305-321, September.
    6. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    7. Cheng Li, 2019. "Morality and value neutrality in economics: a dualist view," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 97-118, May.
    8. Marc Audi & Amjad Ali, 2023. "Public Policy and Economic Misery Nexus: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing World," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 13(3), pages 56-73, May.
    9. Tiago Cardão-Pito, 2021. "Academic discipline of economics as hedonist philosophy," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 199-207, November.
    10. Priscila Neves-Silva & Juliana Aurora de Oliveira Lopes & Léo Heller, 2020. "The right to water: Impact on the quality of life of rural workers in a settlement of the Landless Workers Movement, Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    11. Minford, Lucy, 2015. "Tax, Regulation and Economic Growth: A Case Study of the UK," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2015/16, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section, revised Jun 2016.
    12. Michael Lainé, 2012. "Keynes on method: is economics a moral science?," Chapters, in: Jesper Jespersen & Mogens Ove Madsen (ed.), Keynes’s General Theory for Today, chapter 4, pages 60-78, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Regina Moczadlo & Harald Strotmann & Jürgen Volkert, 2015. "Corporate Contributions to Developing Health Capabilities," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 549-566, November.
    14. Polterovich, Victor, 2017. "Разработка стратегий социально-экономического развития: наука vs идеология [Designing the Strategies for Socio-Economic Development: Science vs. Ideology]," MPRA Paper 81243, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Jay Mitra & Mariusz Sokolowicz & Ursula Weisenfeld & Agnieszka Kurczewska & Silke Tegtmeier, 2020. "Citizen Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Picture of the Inclusion, Integration and Engagement of Citizens in the Entrepreneurial Process," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 6(2), pages 242-260, July.
    16. Mariscal Avilés, Judith & Benítez Larghi, Sebastián & Martínez Aguayo, María Angélica, 2015. "The informational life of the poor: A study of digital access in three Mexican towns," 2015 Regional ITS Conference, Los Angeles 2015 146351, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    17. Horodecka, Anna & Śliwińska, Magdalena, 2019. "Fair Trade phenomenon – limits of neoclassical and chances of heterodox economics," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 6(3), pages 1-29, July.
    18. De Brucker, Klaas & Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain, 2013. "Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 122-131.
    19. Mildenberger, Carl David & Pietri, Antoine, 2018. "How does size matter for military success? Evidence from virtual worlds," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 137-155.
    20. Peter Andre & Armin Falk, 2021. "What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 102, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-022-00565-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.