IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jintdv/v38y2026i6p961-975.html

The Blind Spots of Aid Evaluation: Why Do Some Departments Capture Unintended Effects Better Than Others?

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk‐Jan Koch
  • Zunera Rana
  • Charline Burton

Abstract

This study examines why some evaluation agencies and departments of bilateral aid donors report more unintended effects than others. It does so by analysing Belgian, Dutch and German evaluation practices. Using a comparative political economy approach, it evaluates the rigour and independence vis‐à‐vis implementers of their systems. Findings show that evaluation systems designed to actively detect unintended effects do identify more of them. Departments and agencies that are structurally separated from the aid implementers find relatively more than two times as much negative unintended effects than those agencies that are embedded within the aid implementer's structure. The study shows (1) how institutional commitment shapes attention to unintended effects and that (2) independence vis‐à‐vis aid implementers contributes to more reporting on negative unintended effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk‐Jan Koch & Zunera Rana & Charline Burton, 2026. "The Blind Spots of Aid Evaluation: Why Do Some Departments Capture Unintended Effects Better Than Others?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(6), pages 961-975, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jintdv:v:38:y:2026:i:6:p:961-975
    DOI: 10.1002/jid.70097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.70097
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/jid.70097?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jintdv:v:38:y:2026:i:6:p:961-975. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/5102/home .

    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.