The “Numbers Game”: Strategic Reactions to Results-Based Development Assistance in Ghana

Abstract

Current development assistance prioritizes results and evaluative schemes used to generate them as the most effective way of delivering aid by presenting these results as evidence of accomplishment. Aid recipients and donors respond with a crafty tactic, which we term the “numbers game.” They generate results to satisfy assessment expectations irrespective of actual service delivery or satisfaction of the local population. This tactic yields both external and internal legitimacy: recipient countries legitimize their access to external funds while external actors sustain the aid enterprise that is under persistent scrutiny. In-depth interviews, observation, and existing data on everyday life of municipal councils in Ghana lend support to the preeminence given to results-based aid (RBA) in the numbers game. Startlingly, the expected impact targeted by the scheme is strategically set aside so that more capacity gaps are created and hence the need for more RBA resources to address. A delicate balance between results and on-the-ground impact is required for such intervention to have effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Different terminologies for RBA in the literature include payment-by-results (PbR), performance-based aid (PBA), cash-on-delivery (CoD), and aid-on-delivery (AoD). In this paper, we adopt RBA as the widely used concept.

  2. 2.

    A report on RBM progress at UNDP deplored the “weak culture of results” that should be improved with better leadership, more consistent reporting, and enhanced audit schemes (UNDP 2007: xi).

  3. 3.

    In total, there were 216 municipal councils in Ghana at the relevant point in time, which are generically called District Assemblies and, depending on size and extent of urbanization, designated as Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies. The number of municipal councils has increased to 260 since 2018.

  4. 4.

    Fieldwork was carried out as part of a larger study in nine municipalities by first-named author.

  5. 5.

    Namely Kumasi (81), Wa (34), and Nkwanta South (22).

  6. 6.

    These included municipal rate-fixing, social accountability and budget forums, and mid-year reviews of donor-funded projects.

  7. 7.

    While using the DLT to highlight apparent differences between RBA scores and “actual” performance, we are mindful of its narrow focus on a few indicators that present potential ranking biases.

  8. 8.

    Canada withdrew from the program in 2014 and was replaced by Switzerland with a commitment of nearly US$ 34 million for the remaining phase until 2017.

  9. 9.

    Figures were given in Ghana Cedis (GH¢); for uniformity, we adopt the 2013 exchange rate of US$ 1 = GH¢ 2.2.

  10. 10.

    Exact quotas for the various dimensions are set by the ministry prior to each assessment session.

  11. 11.

    Maple Consult (2012: 23).

  12. 12.

    The DLT evaluates municipalities’ actual performance in education, security, water and sanitation, health and governance. The RBA and DLT scores hardly correlate (r = .11, N = 216; p > .05).

  13. 13.

    Actual municipal councils evaluated were 170 in 2011. The 46 municipal councils created in 2011 received the same allocation as their parent councils.

  14. 14.

    See Donkor (2015) for a tussle between a local think-thank and a mayor over performance ranking of municipal councils.

  15. 15.

    This idea is enshrined in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and the Local Government Act. At the same time, it remains dominant in national and international policy debates.

  16. 16.

    Regional planning official, Kumasi, 16.08.2013.

  17. 17.

    Finance official, Wa, 01.08.2013.

  18. 18.

    Senior official, Ministry of Local Government, Accra, 14.10.2013.

  19. 19.

    Planning official, Kumasi, 12.07.2013.

  20. 20.

    Senior local government official, Accra, 14.10.2013.

  21. 21.

    Quoted in KfW Development Bank, 07/2016.

  22. 22.

    Evaluation contracts were awarded to private consultants but their independence is suspect given emergent concerns over their recruitment (Braimah and Inkoom 2016: 12).

  23. 23.

    Administrative official, Kumasi, 09.09.2013.

  24. 24.

    Councilor, Nkwanta, 12.10.2017.

  25. 25.

    Councilor, Nkwanta 13.10.2017.

  26. 26.

    Councilor, Kumasi, 20.08.2013.

  27. 27.

    Jalulah, 21.01. 2014.

  28. 28.

    Ward X’s councilor was a high-ranking member on the Executive Committee.

  29. 29.

    Councilor, Kumasi, 18.09.2013.

  30. 30.

    Councilor, Wa, 31.07.2013.

  31. 31.

    Senior local government official, Accra, 14.10.2013.

  32. 32.

    Senior implementing agency official, Kumasi, 20.01.2016.

  33. 33.

    Senior implementing agency official, Kumasi, 20.01.2016.

  34. 34.

    The DDF would currently be funded through government remittance, DACF with an amount of US$ 20 million earmarked for 2018. Already in August 2018 consultants were training budget officials how to use the new evaluation tool.

References

  1. Abdulai A-G, Hulme D. The politics of regional inequality in Ghana: state elites, donors and PRSPs. Dev Policy Rev. 2015;33(5):529–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews M, Pritchett L, Woolcock M. Escaping capability traps through problem driven iterative adaptation (PDIA). World Dev. 2013;51:234–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bawole JN, Ibrahim M. Value-for-money audit for accountability and performance management in local government in Ghana. Int J Public Adm. 2017;40(7):598–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1142999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bevan G, Hood C. What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Adm. 2006;84:517–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Braimah I, Inkoom D. Theoretical reflections on Ghana’s decentralisation: increasing discretional funding through the district development facility. In: Dick E, Gaesing K, Inkoom D, Kausel T, editors. Decentralisation and regional development: experiences and lessons from four continents over three decades. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burawoy M. The extended case method. Sociol Theor. 1998;16(1):4–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carothers T, de Gramont D. Development aid confronts politics: the almost revolution. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clist P. Payment by results in development aid: all that glitters is not gold. World Bank Res Obs. 2016;31(2):290–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkw005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clist P. Payment by results in international development: evidence from the first decade. Dev Policy Rev. 2019;37:719–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahler-Larsen P. Constitutive effects of performance indicators: getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Manag Rev. 2014;16(7):969–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dev-Pro Consulting. Functional organisational assessment of metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies, 2011: consolidated regional assessment report−Volta Region. Accra: Dev-Pro Consulting; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DiMaggio P, Powell W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: Powell W, DiMaggio P, editors. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press; 1991. p. 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  13. District Assemblies Common Fund Administrator (DACFA). Composite yearly funds of the District Assemblies Common Fund. Accra: DACFA; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Donkor E.A. Kumasi mayor challenges CDD-UNICEF district league rankings. Joy Online, Nov 30, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2015/November-30th/kumasi-mayor-challenges-cdd-unicef-district-league-rankings.php

  15. Eldridge C, Palmer N. Performance-based payment: some reflections on discourse, evidence and unanswered questions. Health Policy Plan. 2009;24(3):160–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czp002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eyben R. Uncovering the politics of evidence and results. In: Eyben R, Guijt I, Roche C, Shutt C, editors. The politics of evidence and results in international development: playing the game to change the rules? Rugby: Practical Action Publishing; 2015. p. 19–38. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448855.002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fedelino A, Smoke P. Bridging public financial management and fiscal decentralization reforms in developing countries. In: Cangiano M, Curristine T, Lazare M, editors. Public financial management and its emerging architecture. Washington, D.C.: IMF; 2013. p. 363–88.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fukuda-Parr S, Yamin AE, Greenstein J. The power of numbers: a critical review of millennium development goal targets for human development and human rights. J Hum Dev Cap. 2014;15(2/3):105–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2013.864622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghana Audit Service (GAS). Report of the auditor-general on the accounts of district assemblies for the financial year ended 31 December 2014. Accra: GAS; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gilbert G, Hugounenq R, Vaillancourt F. Local public finances in Ghana. In: Dafflon B, Madiès T, editors. Political economy of decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2013. p. 107–60.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heese J, Krishnan R, Moers F. Selective regulator decoupling and organizations’ strategic responses. Acad Manag J. 2016;59(6):2178–204. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Holzapfel S. The role of indicators in development cooperation: an overview study with a special focus on the use of key and standard indicators. Bonn: DIE Studies No. 81; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hulme D. Lessons from the making of the MDGs: human development meets results-based management in an unfair world. IDS Bull. 2010;41(1):15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson D. Performance-based grants offer powerful incentives to local governments. UNCDF News, May 18, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.uncdf.org/en/content/performance-based-grants-offer-powerful-incentives-local-governments

  25. Jalulah W. Bolgatanga municipal assembly fails UDG test … and loses GH¢ 690,000. The Ghanaian Chronicle, Jan 31, 2014. Retrieved from http://thechronicle.com.gh/bolgatanga-municipal-assembly-fails-udg-test-and-losses-gh%C2%A2-690000/

  26. Janus H. Real innovation or second-best solution? First experiences from results-based aid for fiscal decentralisation in Ghana and Tanzania. Bonn: DIE Discussion Paper No. 3; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Keijzer N, Janus H. Linking results-based aid and capacity development support: conceptual and practical challenges. Bonn: DIE Discussion Paper No. 25; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  28. KfW Development Bank. Governance – Ghana. Frankfurt: KfW Development Bank; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Killick T. Politics, evidence and the new aid agenda. Dev Policy Rev. 2004;22(1):5–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2004.00235.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Klingebiel S, Janus H. Results-based aid: potential and limits of an innovative modality in development cooperation. Int Dev Pol. 2014;5(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Klingebiel S, Gonsior V, Jakobs F, Nikitka M. Public sector performance and development cooperation in Rwanda: results-based approaches. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kühl S. Capacity development as the model for development aid organizations. Dev Change. 2009;40(3):551–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01538.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mahama C. Framework for implementation of decentralization reforms in Ghana (2). The Ghanaian Times, Jun 15, 2013, p. 6.

  34. Maple Consult. Performance assessment of metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies in the northern region using the functional and organisational assessment tool. Maple Consult: Accra; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Meyer JW, Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. In: Powell W, DiMaggio P, editors. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1991. p. 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD). Functional and organisational assessment tool operational manual (6th cycle). Accra: MLGRD; 2012a.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD). Operational manual for the implementation and administration of the district development facility. Accra: MLGRD; 2012b.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD). Consolidated report on FOAT V (2011) assessments of MMDAs. Accra: MLGRD; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD). Local government capacity support projects: the district development facility and urban development grants. Accra: MLGRD; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Montinola GR. When does aid conditionality work? St Comp Int Dev. 2010;45(3):358–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-010-9068-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. OECD. The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra agenda for action. Paris: OECD; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pache A-C, Santos F. Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad Manag J. 2013;56(4):972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paul E. Performance-based aid: why it will probably not meet its promises. Dev Policy Rev. 2015;33(3):313–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pearson M, Johnson M, Ellison R. Review of major results based aid (RBA) and results based financing (RBF) schemes. London: DFID; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Romeo LG. The role of external assistance in supporting decentralisation reform. Public Adm Dev. 2003;23(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rottenburg R, Merry SE. A world of indicators: the making of governmental knowledge through quantification. In: Rottenburg R, Merry SE, Park S-J, Mugler J, editors. A world of indicators: the making of government knowledge through quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sabbi M. Strategic bureaucracies: transnational funding and mundane practices of Ghanaian local governments. Third World Q. 2017;38(4):939–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1176858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Small ML. How many cases do I need?’: on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009;10(1):5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith P. On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. Int J Public Adm. 1995;18(2–3):277–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699508525011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. UN General Assembly. Renewing the United Nations: a programme for reform. New York: United Nations Report of the Secretary-General No. A/51/950; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  51. UNCDF. Performance-based grant systems: concept and international experience. New York: UNCDF; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  52. UNDP. Evaluation of results-based management at UNDP. New York: UNDP; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  53. UNICEF. Center for Democratic Development-Ghana (CDD). Ghana’s district league table: strengthening social accountability for national development. Accra: UNICEF/CDD; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vähämäki J. The results agenda in Swedish development cooperation: cycles of failure or reform success? In: Eyben R, Guijt I, Roche C, Shutt C, editors. The politics of evidence and results in international development: playing the game to change the rules? Rugby: Practical Action; 2015. p. 135–54. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448855.008.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Valters C, Whitty B. The politics of results agenda in DFID: 1997–2017. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Van Thiel S, Leeuw FL. The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Perform Manag Rev. 2002;25(3):267–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2002.11643661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vandemoortele J. Post-2015 agenda: mission impossible? Dev Stud Res: An Open Access J. 2014;1(1):223–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2014.943415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Whitfield L, editor. The politics of aid: African strategies for dealing with donors. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Winters MS. The obstacles to foreign aid harmonization: lessons from decentralization support in Indonesia. St Comp Int Dev. 2012;47(3):316–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-012-9114-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Woll B. Donor harmonisation and government ownership: multi-donor budget support in Ghana. Eur J Dev Res. 2008;20(1):74–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810701853215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yanguas P. Why we lie about aid: development and the messy politics of change. London: Zed Books; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Part of the research for this article was generously funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation through research project number Az. 40.17.0.002EL on municipal councilors in Ghana.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Sabbi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabbi, M., Stroh, A. The “Numbers Game”: Strategic Reactions to Results-Based Development Assistance in Ghana. St Comp Int Dev 55, 77–98 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-019-09296-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Numbers game
  • Results-based aid
  • Evidence
  • Municipal councils