Skip to main content

Seeing Through the Logical Framework

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations volume 31, pages 1239–1253 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

In this study, we examine the key management and scientific traditions that inform the logical framework, a project planning and evaluation tool that is central to how many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) manage their projects and provide accounts to funders. Through an analysis of USAID reports from the 1960s and 1970s, interviews with the logical framework’s developers, and a close reading of seminal texts, we identify how systems theory, management by objectives, and scientific theory informed how USAID problematized its project planning and evaluation practices and how they came to be inscribed into the logical framework as a way to address such perceived problems. We argue that these traditions are important for understanding a particular strand of managerialization that informs international development NGOs, and, more generally, for understanding how funding agencies “see” through the logical framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Source: Practical Concepts Inc. 1971

Fig. 2

Source: Practical Concepts Inc. 1979, p. II-6

Notes

  1. Each tradition (e.g., system analysis) has principles (e.g., a system is part of larger systems, and/or a system is defined by its objectives). These principles, as we will show, informed the LF.

  2. Antony worked under Robert McNamara in the Department of Defense, where system thinking was influential.

  3. In an interview, Rosenberg referred to Herb D. Tuner and Robert L. Hubbell, of the agency’s Program Evaluation Committee, as the LF’s “midwifery team.”

  4. Rosenberg (1983) is a 74-page transcript of Rosenberg talking about the LF, in particular its intellectual antecedents for a Practical Concepts Inc. video workshop. The date is not clear, but we believe it is from 1983.

  5. The LF was proposed for both designing and “for the re-examination of the original design of ongoing projects as a necessary prelude to evaluation” (Tuner 1976, p. 10).

  6. Rosenberg acknowledges the influence of contract writing. In particular the principle of letting stakeholders know what the contract is about so that it could be enforced (Rosenberg 1983, p. 12). This requires stakeholders to agree on the LF matrix while freeing both parties from responsibility for things beyond their control. The grid identifies what is manageable.

  7. We would like to thank one of the reviewers for this observation. However, historical and sociological studies of science show that science itself can be quite conservative and unresponsive to innovation and novelty (Kuhn 1962). Further, complaints that the LF stifles innovation may reflect the formalization of aid accountability and the power imbalances that are associated with increased scrutiny of, and accountability to, funders (Martinez and Cooper 2017).

References

  • Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, 66(C), 707–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2011). Empire of humanity: A history of humanitarianism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, S. (1959). Cybernetic and management. London: The English University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E., & Caughlin, K. (2009). Donors, ideologues, and bureaucrats: Government objectives and the performance of the nonprofit sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(1), 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2015). Exploring how the balanced scorecard engages and unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1236–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwastiak, M. (1999). Accounting and the cold war: The transformation of waste into riches. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(6), 747–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwastiak, M. (2001). Taming the untamable: Planning, programming and budgeting and the normalization of war. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(6), 501–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwastiak, M. (2006). Rationality, performance measures and representations of reality: Planning, programming and budgeting and the Vietnam War. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(1), 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, P. (1995). A poverty-oriented cost-benefit approach to the analysis of development projects. World Development, 23(4), 577–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbeil, R. (1986). Logic on logic models. Evaluation newsletter. Ottawa: Office of the Comptroller General of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1954). The principles of management. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 84–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esman, M., & Montgomery, J. (1969). Systems approaches to technical cooperation: The role of development administration. Public Administration Review, 29, 507–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “Development”, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, R. (2015). The neutrality and formality of conflict: Strategies, transformation and sights of the logical framework in Sarvodaya. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free, C., & Qu, S. Q. (2011). The use of graphics in promoting management ideas. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 7(2), 158–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, N. (2010). Beyond the logframe: Using systems concepts in evaluation. Tokyo: Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-oriented development evaluation. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better AND costs less. Report of the National Performance Review. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384294.pdf.

  • Granger, C. H. (1964). The hierarchy of objectives. Harvard Business Review, 42(3), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., Millo, Y., & Barman, E. (2015). Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 907–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1978). The poverty of management control philosophy. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 450–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrones, J. (1964). Forward. In M. D. Mesarovic & J. Hrones (Eds.), Views on general systems story: Proceedings of the second systems symposium at the case institute of technology. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummelbrunner, R. (2010). Beyond logframe: Critique, variations and alternatives. In N. Fujita (Ed.), Beyond the logframe: Using systems concepts in evaluation. Tokyo: Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvenmark, J. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 223–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvenmark, J. (2015). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2833–2859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. P., Roberts, S. M., & Fröhling, O. (2011). Managerialism in motion: Lessons from Oaxaca. Journal of Latin American Studies, 43(4), 633–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, M. (2010). Accounting for state intervention: The social histories of “beneficiaries”. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), 533–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, M. (2014). The good project: Humanitarian relief NGOs and the fragmentation of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T. M. (2008). Beyond “the state” and failed schemes. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 587–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2017). Assembling international development: Accountability and the disarticulation of a social movement. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2019). Assembling performance measurement through engagement. Accounting, Organizations and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2012). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (2007). Mediating instruments and making markets: Capital budgeting, science and the economy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 701–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neesham, C., McCormick, L., & Greenwood, M. (2017). When paradigms meet: Interacting perspectives on evaluation in the non-profit sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(2), 192–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, L., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, O., Guthrie, J., & Humphrey, C. (Eds.). (1998). Global warning! Debating international developments in new public financial management. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2012). Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings, graphic visualisations and sociomateriality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 565–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. M., Jones, J. P., III, & Fröhling, O. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research framework. World Development, 33(11), 1845–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A. (1993). Development projects as policy experiments: An adapted approach to development administration (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg. (1983). Antecedents. Unpublished.

  • Rostow, W. W. (1960/1971). The stages of growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rottenburg, R. (2009). Far-fetched facts: A parable of development aid. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T. (2009). Strategic project management made simple: Practical tools for leaders and teams. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1997/1945). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

  • Solem, R. R. (1987). The logical framework approach to project design, review and evaluation in AID: Genesis Impact problems and opportunities. A.I.D. Working paper No. 99. Centre for Development Information & Evaluation. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

  • Taylor, F. W. (1903/1993). The principles of scientific management. London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press.

  • Townley, B., Cooper, D., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuner, H. D. (1976). Program evaluation in aid: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, T., Bornstein, L., & Chapman, J. (2006). The aid chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, T., Crowther, S., & Shepherd, A. (1997). Standardising development: Influences on UK NGOs’ policies and procedures. London: World View Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallroth, C. (1968). An analysis of means-end structures. Acta Sociologica, 11(1–2), 110–118.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Control, HEC Paris, 1 Rue de la Liberation, 78351, Jouy en Josas, France

    Daniel E. Martinez

  2. School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R6, Canada

    David J. Cooper

  3. Edinburgh University Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9JS, UK

    David J. Cooper

Authors
  1. Daniel E. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Martinez.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Reports Cited

  • Bernstein, J. (1968). Report to the Administrator on Improving A.I.D.’s Program Evaluation. Washington D.C.

  • Booz Allen Hamilton. (1965). The Administration of the Agency for International Development. Agency for International Development. Washington D.C.

  • Fry Consultants Incorporated. (1970a). Toward Better Project Evaluation by Improving the PAR System. Submitted to the Agency for International Development. Washington D.C.

  • Fry Consultants Incorporated. (1970b). Project Evaluation and the Project Appraisal Reporting System. Vol 1. Summary. Submitted to the Agency for International Development. Washington D.C.

  • Fry Consultants Incorporated. (1970c). Project Evaluation and the Project Appraisal Reporting System. Vol 2: Findings and Documentation. Submitted to the Agency for International Development. Washington D.C.

  • Lincoln, G. A. (1965). Improving A.I.D. Program Evaluation. Department of State. Agency of International Development. Washington D.C.

  • Practical Concepts Inc. (1971). The ‘logical framework.’ Washington D.C.

  • Practical Concepts Inc. (1979). The logical framework: A manager’s guide to a scientific approach to design and evaluation. Washington D.C.

  • Practical Concepts Inc. (1981). Training the trainers in management (TTM). Washington D.C.

  • USAID. (1966). A.I.D. Information Systems Task Force. Washington D.C.

  • USAID. (1970). Evaluations Handbook. Washington DC.

  • USAID. (1976). Evaluations Handbook. Second Edition. Washington DC.

Interviews

Name Organization Relevant position
Larry Cooley Practical Concepts Inc. Trainer 1970s
John Daly USAID Project evaluator 1970s–1990s
Lawrence Posner Fry Consultants Inc./Practical Concepts Inc. LF developer and trainer 1960s–1970s
Leon Rosenberg Fry Consultants Inc./Practical Concepts Inc. LF developer and trainer 1960s–1970s
Gerald Schwab USAID Program evaluation officer 1970s
Terry Schmidt Practical Concepts Inc. Trainer 1970s
Robert Youker World Bank Trainer 1970s–1980s

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinez, D., Cooper, D.J. Seeing Through the Logical Framework. Voluntas 31, 1239–1253 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00223-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00223-8

Keywords

  • Logical framework
  • Managerialism
  • State
  • Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)