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.
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.
Bornstein, Lisa (2003) ‘Management Standards and Development Practice in the South African Aid Chain’, Public Administration and Development 23(5): 1–12.
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.
Campbell, Heather and Robert Marshall (1999) ‘Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23(3): 464–478.
Coleman, Gilroy (1992) ‘Monitoring and Evaluation in Agricultural and Rural Development Projects’, Journal of International Development 4(5): 497–510.
Gasper, Des (2000) ‘Evaluating the ‘Logical Framework Approach’: Towards learning-oriented development evaluation’, Public Administration and Development 20: 17–28.
Gasper, Des (2002) ‘Overview of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Logframes’, unpublished paper, ISS: The Hague.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.
Hendler, Susan A. (2002) ‘Contemporary Issues in Planning Ethics’, Plan Canada 42(2): 9–21.
Howe, Elizabeth (1994) Acting on Ethics in City Planning, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers.
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.
Wallace, Tina with Lisa Bornstein and Jennifer Chapman (2006) The Aid Chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs, London: ITDG.
Wallace, Tina, Sarah Crowther and Andrew Shepherd (1997) Standardising Development: Influences of UK NGOs’ policies and procedures, Oxford: Worldview Press.
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.
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.
Additional information
Suggests that monitoring often results in systemic distortions and little improvements for development
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100261