Abstract
The key issue this chapter tries to address relates to a challenge raised by Keith Horton’s chapter “The Epistemic Problem: Potential Solutions”, this volume in response to Peter Singer’s proposition (1999) that the rich have a moral obligation to assist the world’s poor and therefore should give a reasonable proportion of their income to those agencies whose aim it is to alleviate poverty and suffering. Horton’s challenge is that surely this moral obligation only applies if those in a position to give some of their income in this way have some ability to satisfy themselves that the agency or agencies to which they might give, are able to demonstrate the net effect of their work is good enough to imply that we should give to them. He goes on to argue that it is in fact very difficult for those who are not experts on aid to find out what the effects of aid actually are; this he calls the ‘Epistemic Problem’.
*The trouble with measurement is its seeming simplicity’.~ Author Unknown
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ALNAP. http://www.alnap.org accessed 1 July 2007.
Bonbright, D. 2007. The Changing Face of Accountability. Talk at the International Seminar on Civil Society and Accountability, Montevideo, 16 Apr.
BOND. 2006. A BOND Approach to Quality in Non-Governmental Organisations: Putting Beneficiaries First. Report by Keystone and Account Ability for the British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND).
Braden, S.. 1998. Video for Development a Casebook from Vietnam. Oxford: Oxfam.
Burgis, T. and S. Zadek. 2006. Reinventing Accountability for the 21st Century, Account Ability, London.
California Endowment. 2005. The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities: Strategies for a Prospective Evaluation Approach. Los Angeles, CA: The California Endowment.
Chapman, J. and A. Wameyo. 2001. Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy: A Scoping Study. Lima: Preval, http://www.preval.org/documentos/00545.pdf.
Chowdhury, N., C. Finlay-Notman, and I. Hovland. 2006. CSO Capacity for Policy Engagement: Lessons Learned from the CSPP Consultations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Working Paper 272, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Collinson, S., M. Bhatia, M. Evans, R. Fanthorpe, J. Goodhand, and J. Stephen. 2002. Politically Informed Humanitarian Programming: Using a Political Economy Approach, HPN Paper 41. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Cooperrider, D. http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Crawford, P. 2005. Aiding Aid: a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to Enhance International Aid Effectiveness. PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
Crocker, D.. 1996. Hunger, capability and development. In World Hunger and Moral Obligation, eds. A. William and L. Hugh. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, NJ, place, reprinted in Hugh Lafollette (ed.) Ethics in Practice, Routledge, 2nd Ed.
Davies, R.. 1996. An Evolutionary Approach to Facilitating Organisational Learning: An Experiment by the Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh. Swansea: Centre for Development Studies.
Davies, R. and J. Dart. 2005. The Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use, MandE News, Cambridge. http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm.
Davis, A.. 2007. Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action, HPN Paper 58. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Denning, S. http://www.stevedenning.com/LeadersGuide.html. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Easterly, W.. 2006. The White Man’s Burden. London: Penguin Press.
Edwards, M.. 1996. International Development NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Regulation and Roles. London: Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector.
Fukuyama, F.. 2004. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Galtung, J.. 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.
Global Voices. http://globalvoicesonline.org/-/human-rights-video/. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Goold, E.. 2006. Working with Barriers to Organisational Learning. London: BOND.
HAP. http://www.hapinternational.org. Accessed I July 2007.
Harmer, A. and J. Mcrae. 2004. Beyond the Continuum: The Changing Role of Aid Policy in Protracted Crises, HPG Report 18. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Hilhorst, D.. 2005. Dead letter or living document? Ten years of the code of conduct for disaster relief. Disasters 29(4): 351–369.
Hirschman, A.. 1970. Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to the Decline in Firms, Organisations and States. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Horton, K.. 2004. Aid and bias. Inquiry 47(6): 545–561.
Howard, R.. 2007. Where anti-Arab prejudice and oil make the difference. Guardian Wednesday 16 May.
IFRC. 1994. Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/code.asp.
IFRC. 2003. World Disaster Report 2003. Bloomfield, NJ: Kumarian Press.
Jordan, L., van Tuijl, P. eds. 2006. NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles & Innovations. London: Earthscan.
Kruse, S.-E., T. Kyllonen, S. Ojanpera R. Riddell (1997), Searching for Impact and Methods: NGO Evaluation Synthesis Study. Report prepared for the OECD/DAC Expert Group on Evaluation. Helsinki: Department for International Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Masud, N. and B. Yontcheva. 2005. Does Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty? Empirical Evidence from Nongovernmental and Bilateral Aid, IMF working paper WP/05/100, 20. Washington, DC: IMF.
Medecin Sans Frontieres. http://www.msf.ca/blogs/. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Monk, P. 2007. Fantasy, Paranoia, Enthusiasm and Reality. Griffith Review Ed 16:Unintended Consequences.
National Audit Office. 2006. Working with Non-Governmental and other Civil Society Organisations to Promote Development. London: Department for International Development.
Newell, P. and J. Wheeler. 2006. Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability. London: Zed Books.
One World Trust. 2006. Global Accountability Report. London: One World Trust. http://www.oneworldtrust.org/?display=index_2006.
Oxfam GB. 2007. Oxfam Blogs. Oxford: Oxfam. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Patton, M.. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications.
Pretty, J.. 1994. Alternative systems of inquiry for a sustainable agriculture. IDS Bulletin 25(2): 37–49.
Riddell, R.. 1984. Foreign Aid Reconsidered. London: James Currey/Overseas Development Institute.
Riddell, R. 1990. Judging Success: Evaluating NGO Approaches to Alleviating Poverty in Developing Countries, Working Paper No. 37, Overseas Development Institute, London
Riddell, R.. 2007. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: OUP.
Riddell, R.C. and M. Robinson 1992. The Impact of NGO Poverty Alleviating Projects: Results of the Case Studies. Working Paper No.68, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Roche, C.. 1999. Impact Assessment for Development Agencies. Oxford: Oxfam GB.
Roche, C., N. Kasynathan, and P. Gowthaman. 2005. Bottom-up Accountability and the Tsunami. Paper prepared for the International Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, 14–17 Aug.
Roche, C. and L. Kelly. 2003. Evaluating the Performance of Development Agencies: Perspectives from NGO Experience. Paper for World Bank Conference on Evaluating Effectiveness; Challenges and the Way Forward
SPHERE. 2004. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/27/84/lang,English/. Accessed 1 July 2007.
Singer, P. 1999. The Singer Solution to World Poverty, http://people.brandeis.edu/˜teuber/singermag.html. Accessed 13 June 2007.
Slim, H.. 1997. Doing the right thing. Disasters 21(3): 244–257, Sep.
Slim, H.. 2003. Chapter 1 . In World Disasters Report 2003. Bloomfield, NJ: IFRC, Kumarian Press.
Slim, H. 2005. Idealism and Realism in Humanitarian Action. Talks given at the ACFID Humanitarian Forum, Canberra, 5 Oct.
Telford, J., J. Cosgrave, and R. Houghton. 2006. Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Synthesis Report. London: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, http://www.tsunami-evaluation.org/NR/rdonlyres/0B60502D-167D-478C-82DF-1961FCB48A8A/0/ExSum.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2007.
Vaux, T. 2002. The Selfish Altruist: Relief Work in War Famine and War. London: Earthscan.
Wallace, T. and J. Chapman. 2006. An Investigation into the Reality Behind NGO Rhetoric of Downward Accountability. Oxford: INTRAC, http://www.ngopractice.org/docs/INTRACpaper.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2007.
World Bank. 2003. Toward Country-Led Development: A Multi-Partner Evaluation of the Comprehensive Development Framework, Washington, DC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roche, C. (2010). The Seeming Simplicity of Measurement* . In: Horton, K., Roche, C. (eds) Ethical Questions and International NGOs. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8592-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8592-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8591-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8592-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)