Evaluating Development Interventions in Peace-Precarious Situations

Abstract

International development assistance tackles sociopolitical and socioeconomic problems, typically with formal host government and population buy-in (or acquiescence), in settings with complex interrelated challenges. A new subset of contemporary interventions, however, faces all of the usual development challenges plus security threats affecting foreign and local staff, host country leadership, and local counterparts necessary for generating sustainable improvements. Threats can arise as a function of individuals’ roles in promoting development. Evaluations of the results of development interventions in peace-precarious situations not only confront the same extra challenges implementation does in these settings, but must also account for the consequences of a panoply of interactive intangibles, shifting dynamically over time. Salient contextual features shaping feasible and useful approaches to evaluation in peace-precarious situations include adherence to management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems; elasticity in design and resources; and dynamics of stakeholder politics and broader political relationships.

Keywords

international development program evaluation M&E peace-precarious

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Evaluation Association (2004) Guiding Principles for Evaluators. URL (consulted Dec. 2009 ): http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp ; http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesPrintable.asp .

Brzoska, M. ( 2006) ‘Introduction: Criteria for Evaluating Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Security Sector Reform in Peace Support Operations’ , International Peacekeeping 13(1): 1-13.

Cammack, D. , D. McLeod and A. Rocha Menocal , with K. Christiansen (2006) ‘Donors and the "Fragile States" Agenda: A Survey of Current Thinking and Practice’, Overseas Development Institute Report submitted to the Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Dfid (2005) Why we Need to Work More Effectively in Fragile States. London: DFID.

Elkins, Catherine ( 2006) ‘Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) for Development in Peace-Precarious Situations’, paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Conference , San Diego, CA, 22-6 March.

Galtung, F. and M. Tisné ( 2009) ‘A New Approach to Postwar Reconstruction’ , Journal of Democracy 20(4): 93-107.

Ghani, A. , C. Lockhart , and M. Carnahan ( 2005) Closing the Sovereignty Gap: An Approach to State-Building , Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, 253. London.

Oecd Dac (2007) Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. URL (consulted Dec. 2009): http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/45/38368714.pdf

OPM / IDL ( 2008) Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: Thematic Study: - The Applicability of the Paris Declaration in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations. URL (consulted Dec. 2009): http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluationnetwork

10.

Paris, R. and T.D. Sisk ( 2007) Managing Contradictions: The Inherent Dilemmas of Postwar Statebuilding. International Peace Academy Research Partnership on Postwar Statebuilding Working Paper. New York.

11.

Patrick, S. ( 2007) ‘The US Response to Precarious States: Tentative Progress and Remaining Obstacles to Coherence’, Center for Global Development Essay.

12.

Perito, R.M. ( 2007) ‘The US Experience with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan’, testimony before the [US] House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations .

13.

Powles, A. ( 2006) ‘Mission Creep: Statebuilding from Honiara to Dili’ , Security Challenges 2(2): 9-14.

14.

Rogers, P.J. ( 2008) ‘Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions’, Evaluation 14(1): 29-48.

15.

RTI International (2009) ‘Evaluation of the Afghanistan Health Initiative Project’, Report submitted to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

16.

RTI International (2006) ‘Rwanda HMIS Assessment Report’, Report submitted to the US Agency for International Development.

17.

US Agency for International Development (2006 ) Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan: An Inter-agency Assessment. PN-ADG-252. Washington, DC, USAID.

18.

US Agency for International Development (2004 ) U.S. Foreign Aid: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, White Paper. Washington, DC: USAID.