Over the past 20 years, the development industry has changed rapidly and now presents evaluators with a series of new challenges.This article considers this process of change. It argues that there has been a move away from a `project-based' approach to a broader vision of development centred on the Millennium Development Goals, which has led to a change of the evaluation approach: from an assessment of outputs to an evaluation of results. Furthermore, the increasing complexity of ways in which the development process is conceptualized demands increasingly sophisticated and interpretive approaches to evaluation.Whilst there will remain space for positivist approaches in certain sectors of the industry, it is increasingly likely that other approaches will become more dominant.
African Development Bank (2004) Stepping up to the Future: An Independent Evaluation of African Development Fund VII, VIII and IX. Tunis: African Development Bank.
2.
Back, L. (2006) Challenges to EvaluationCapaci ty: Development through Country Level Evaluations, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
3.
Burall, S. and S. Maxwell , with A.R. Menocal (2006) Reforming the International Aid Architecture: Options and Ways Forward. London: Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 278.
4.
Center for Global Development (2006) When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation. Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group , URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/7973
5.
Cracknell, B.E. (2001) The Role of Aid-Evaluation Feedback as an Input into the Learning Organization , Evaluation7(1): 132-45.
6.
DAC Development Partnership Forum Report ( 2002) Managing and Measuring for Development Results and Aid Effectiveness, Paris, 11-12 December 2002 , DAC Journal on Development4(1): 1-5.
7.
Danida (2004) Meta-Evaluation: Private and Business Sector Development Interventions. Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
8.
Danida (2005) Globalisation: Progress through Partnership. Copenhagen : Ministry of Foreign Affairs,URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.amg.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BD805561-B40B-462D-BC2F-C541823EFB29/0/GlobalisationProgressThroughPartnership.pdf
9.
Dart, J. and R. Davies (2003) A Dialogical, Story-Based Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique , American Journal of Evaluation24(2): 137-55.
10.
Davidson, E.J. (2000) Ascertaining Causality in Theory-Based Evaluation , New Directions for Evaluation87(1): 17-26.
11.
Davies, R. (2006) Networks and Partnerships: Some Tools for Representing and Analysing Networks, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
12.
Dimitrov, T. (2006) Networks and Partnerships: The Role of IDEAS, the International Development Evaluation Association, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
13.
Dfid (2000) Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. London : DFID.
14.
Dfid (2006) Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor. London: DFID.
15.
Earl, S. (2006) Behaviour Changes as Development Outcomes. An Introduction to Outcome Mapping, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
16.
Earl, S. , F. Carden and T. Smutylo (2001) Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
17.
Fetterman, D. and A. Wandersman , eds (2004) Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: Guilford Press.
18.
Fetterman, D. M.,S. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman , eds ( 1996) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
Freeman,T. (2005) Country Programme Evaluation in an Era of Change. Evaluation Working Papers . New York: UNICEF.
20.
Gariba, S. (2006) For Whom the Bell Tolls: Improving Accountability for Policy through Evaluation, URL (consulted 7 November 2007 ): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
21.
Grahn, R. (2000) A Study into Methods for Tracking the Research Uptake and Developmental Impact of NRSP Funded Research Projects, unpublished manuscript.
22.
Gregory, A. (2000) Problematizing Participation: A Critical Review of Approaches to Participation in Evaluation Theory , Evaluation6(2): 179-99.
23.
Holte-McKenzie, M. , S. Forde and S. Theobald (2006) Development of a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy , Evaluation and Program Planning29(4): 365-76.
24.
Holvoet, N. and R. Renard (2007) Monitoring and Evaluation under the PRSP: Solid Rock or Quicksand? , Evaluation and Program Planning30(1): 66-81.
25.
Hulme, D. (1997) Impact Assessment Methodologies for Microfinance: A Review , paper prepared for a meeting of the CGIAP working group on Impact Assessment Methodologies, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.ids.ac.uk/impact/resources/introduction/Hulme_IA_meth_review.pdf
26.
Jacobs, C. (2005) Evaluating the Comprehensive Development Framework in Kyrgyz Republic , Central Asia: Magic Bullet or White Elephant?, Evaluation11(4): 480-95.
27.
Kakande, M. (2006) Evaluating Poverty Reduction Strategies: Ugandas Experience, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
28.
Kusek, J.Z. , R.C. Rist and E.M. White (2005) How will we Know the Millennium Development Goal Results When We See Them? , Evaluation11(1): 7-26.
29.
Lister, S. (2006) Evaluating General Budget Support, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
30.
Lithman, E. (2006) Trends in Development Evaluation: Changing Approaches, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
31.
Liverani,A. and H.E. Lundgren (2007) Evaluation Systems in Development Aid Agencies: An Analysis of DAC Peer Reviews 1996-2004 , Evaluation13(2): 241-56.
32.
Love, A.J. and C. Russon (2000) Building a Worldwide Evaluation Community: Past, Present, and Future , Evaluation and Program Planning23(4): 449-59.
33.
Marra, M. (2000) How Much does Evaluation Matter? Some Examples of the Utilization of the Evaluation of the World Banks Anti-Corruption Activities , Evaluation6(1): 22-36.
34.
Martin, S. (2005) Evaluation, Inspection and the Improvement Agenda: Contrasting Fortunes in an Era of Evidence-Based Policy Making , Evaluation11(4): 496-504.
35.
Mertens, D.M. (2005) The Inauguration of the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation , American Journal of Evaluation26(1): 124-30.
36.
Naidoo, I. (2006) The Influence of the PSC on Policy and Governance in South Africa, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
37.
Oecd (2002) Action for a Shared Development Agenda, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_2649_33721_2088942_1_1_1_1,00.html
38.
Oecd (2005) Policy Coherence for Development: Promoting Institutional Good Practice. Paris: OECD.
39.
Ofir, Z. (2006) Developing Evaluation Capacity for National Poverty Reduction Strategies, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
40.
Picciotto, R. (2002) The Logic of Mainstreaming: A Development Evaluation Perspective , Evaluation8(3): 322-39.
41.
Picciotto, R. (2005) The Evaluation of Policy Coherence for Development , Evaluation11(3): 311-30.
42.
Picciotto, R. (2006) The Global Dimension of Development Evaluation, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
43.
Rugh, J. (2006) Addressing the Evaluation Gap, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/development/1-4-9-1-1.html
44.
Schaumberg-Muller, H. (2005) Use of Aid Evaluation from an Organizational Perspective , Evaluation11(2): 207-22.
45.
Schnoes, C.J. , V. Murphy-Berman and J.M. Chambers (2000) Empowerment Evaluation Applied: Experiences, Analysis and Recommendations from a Case Study , American Journal of Evaluation21(1): 53-64.
46.
Shadish, W.R. , S. Chacon-Moscoso and J. Sanchez-Meca (2005) Evidence-Based Decision Making: Enhancing Systematic Reviews of Program Evaluation Results in Europe , Evaluation11(1): 111-22.
47.
Stek, P. (2003) Evaluation at the World Bank and Implications for Bilateral Donors , Evaluation9(4): 491-7.
48.
Stirrat, R.L. (2003) Methodological Issues in Identifying the Impact of Research Projects: A Review of the Literature. Stirling : Institute of Aquaculture, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.dfid.stir.ac.uk/Afgrp/program/impact.pdf
49.
Van den Berg, R.D. (2005) Results Evaluation and Impact Assessment in Development Co-operation , Evaluation11(1): 27-36.
50.
World Bank (2002) IDAs Partnership for Poverty Reduction: An Independent Evaluation of Fiscal Years 1994-2000 . Washington, DC: World Bank.
51.
World Bank (2005) Influential Evaluations: Detailed Case Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department.
52.
World Bank (2007) Aid Architecture: an Overview of the Main Trends in Official Development Assistance Flows. Washington, DC: International Development Association .
53.
World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. London: Earthscan, URL (consulted 7 November 2007): http://www.dams.org//docs/report/wcdreport.pdf
