Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 509–519

Combining value for money with increased aid to fragile states: welcome partnership or clash of agendas?

Article

Abstract

This article examines the origins and main strands of recent debates within the international development community regarding the tensions between increasing aid allocation to so-called ‘fragile states’ and growing domestic and international pressure for donors to demonstrate measurable results and returns on their investments. With particular reference to the UK context, the paper examines how the confluence of these two agendas is being viewed, at least publicly, and some of the main arguments that have been put forward about why they may be difficult to pursue simultaneously. It asks whether or not it is feasible that donors will explicitly seek to address and resolve the apparent trade-offs between these two agendas, and concludes that in both international and domestic political arenas, ‘good enough’ aid effectiveness, or a more nuanced, ‘developmentised’ understanding of value for money, are unlikely to become palatable or politically viable any time soon.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A. (2004) Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: A report on early experiences. The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, October.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnett, C. et al. (2010). Measuring the impact and value for money of governance programmes, ITAD, available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/60797_itad-vfm-report-dec10.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2011.
  3. 3.
    Bunting, M. (11 April 2011). Value for money is not compatible with increasing aid to “fragile states”. Guardian Poverty Matters Blog. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/11/increasing-aid-to-fragile-states. Accessed 12 April 2011.
  4. 4.
    Collier, P. (2007). The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4&5), 471–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DFID. (2010). Spending review 2010. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2010/Spending-Review-2010/. Accessed 15 December 2010.
  7. 7.
    DFID. (2011a). Nepal: Operational Plan 2011–2015. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/nepal-2011.pdf. Accessed 7 November 2011.
  8. 8.
    DFID. (2011b). DFID’s Approach to Value for Money (VfM). London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmi, A., et al. (2011). Value for money: Current approaches and evolving debates. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Green, D. (21 June 2011). What does a theory of change look like? From poverty to power. Available from: http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/. Accessed 10 August 2011.
  11. 11.
    Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2010). Citizen action and national policy reform: Making change happen. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grindle, M. (2004). Good Enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    GSDRC. (2010). Research report: Value for money, Governance and social development resource centre, University of Birmingham, September. Available at http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/HD712.pdf. Accessed 2 October 2011.
  14. 14.
    Henson, S., & Lindstrom, J. (2010). Aid to developing countries: Where does the UK public stand? Institute of development studies and UK public opinion monitor, University of Sussex, UK. Available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/uk-public-say-development-aid-is-morally-right-but-should-be-cut-to-deal-with-the-budget-deficit. Accessed 12 December 2010.
  15. 15.
    Hoole, D. (2011). Reinventing value for money: New wine in an old bottle? Oxford: Oxford Policy Management.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ICAI. (2011). ICAI’s approach to effectiveness and value for money. London: UK Independent Commission on Aid Impact.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, B., et al. (2008). From fragility to resilience: Concepts and dilemmas of state building in fragile states. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kosack, S., Tolmie, C., & Griffin, C. (2010) From the ground up: Improving government performance with independent monitoring organizations. Brooking Institute Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marquette, H. (2011). Donors, state building and corruption: lessons from Afghanistan and the implications for aid policy. Third World Quarterly, 32(10), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mcloughlin, C. (2010). Topic guide on fragile states. Governance and social development resource centre, University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/CON86.pdf. Accessed 2 December 2010.
  21. 21.
    NAO. (2011). A short guide to structured cost reduction. UK: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Natsios, A. (2006). Five debates on international development: the US perspective. Development Policy Review, 24(2), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OECD. (2005). Paris declaration. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    OECD. (2007). Principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OECD. (2009). Aid effectiveness: A progress report on implementing the Paris declaration. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ACCRAEXT/Resources/Progress_Report-Full-EN.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2010.
  26. 26.
    OECD. (2011a). International engagement in fragile states: Cannot we do better? OECD, Paris. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/14/48697077.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2011.
  27. 27.
    OECD. (2011). Value for money and international development: Deconstructing some myths to promote more constructive discussion. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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. Available at http://www.opml.co.uk/policy_areas/aid_policy/fragile_states/fragile_states.html. Accessed 15 December 2010.
  29. 29.
    Scott, Z., Hubbard, M., & Sinha, P. (2010). The future of the Paris agenda. GSDRC Issues Paper, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    UK Parliament. (2011). Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence (HC1398): House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts Fifty-second Report of Session 2010-12—DFID Financial Management. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1398/1398.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2011.
  31. 31.
    Heerde, V., & Hudson, D. (2010). The righteous considereth the cause of the poor? Public attitudes towards poverty in developing countries. Political Studies, 58, 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. Connell et al. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington: Aspen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoë Scott
    • 1
  • Claire Mcloughlin
    • 2
  • Heather Marquette
    • 2
  1. 1.Oxford Policy ManagementOxfordUK
  2. 2.International Development DepartmentUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations