Skip to main content
Log in

Systems of Accountability, Webs of Deceit? Monitoring and Evaluation in South African NGOs

  • Thematic Section
  • Published:
Development Aims and scope

Abstract

International requirements that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) adopt systems of monitoring, evaluation and reporting for their funded development work are generating surprising effects. Although such systems were introduced to enhance the accountability of NGO staff and to better guide implementation, her research in South Africa suggests that they often foster fear and deceit, resulting in systemic distortions of information and limited improvements of projects and their implementation.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aune, Jens B. (2000) ‘Logical Framework Approach and PRA – Mutually Exclusive Tools for Project Planning?’ Development in Practice 10(5): 687–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, Lisa (2003) ‘Management Standards and Development Practice in the South African Aid Chain’, Public Administration and Development 23(5): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, Lisa (ed.) (2005) ‘Negotiating Aid: UK Funders, NGOs and South African Development, South Africa Report’, Research monograph, School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal: Durban.

  • Brinkerhoff, Derick and Janet Tuthill (1987) La Gestion Efficace des Projets de Développement, West Hartford: Kumarian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Heather and Robert Marshall (1999) ‘Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23(3): 464–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Gilroy (1992) ‘Monitoring and Evaluation in Agricultural and Rural Development Projects’, Journal of International Development 4(5): 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, Des (2000) ‘Evaluating the ‘Logical Framework Approach’: Towards learning-oriented development evaluation’, Public Administration and Development 20: 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasper, Des (2002) ‘Overview of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Logframes’, unpublished paper, ISS: The Hague.

  • Harrison, Graham (1999) ‘Corruption as ‘Boundary Politics’: The state, democratisation and Mozambique's unstable liberalisation’, Third World Quarterly 20(3): 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendler, Susan A. (2002) ‘Contemporary Issues in Planning Ethics’, Plan Canada 42(2): 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, Elizabeth (1994) Acting on Ethics in City Planning, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes, Mick (1992) ‘Linking Paradigms and Practice: Key issues in the appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of British NGO projects’, Journal of International Development 4: 375–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, Tina with Lisa Bornstein and Jennifer Chapman (2006) The Aid Chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs, London: ITDG.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, Tina, Sarah Crowther and Andrew Shepherd (1997) Standardising Development: Influences of UK NGOs’ policies and procedures, Oxford: Worldview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, Steve and Dermot Shields (1995) ‘Clarifying the ‘Logical Framework’ as a Tool for Planning and Managing Development Projects’, Project Appraisal 10(1): 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this paper was conducted within a wider study of NGO funding relationships and development management (see Wallace et al., 2006). The South African component for which I was responsible benefited from funding from the Nuffield Foundation and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Important research and writing inputs for the South African research come from the research team (Isaivani Hyman, Annsilla Nyar, Terence Smith), several students (Vicci Tallis, Shelly Dill and Catherine Ogunmefun) and several NGO representatives (Carol-Ann Foulis and Allan Kaplan). Thanks are extended to them for their intellectual inputs and support throughout the research, as well as to the many NGO representatives and grantmakers who provided time, information and insight. Although this paper benefited from their input, the views expressed here are, of course, those of the author alone.

Authors

Additional information

Suggests that monitoring often results in systemic distortions and little improvements for development

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bornstein, L. Systems of Accountability, Webs of Deceit? Monitoring and Evaluation in South African NGOs. Development 49, 52–61 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100261

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100261

Keywords

Navigation