An In-Depth International Comparison of Major Donor Agencies: How Do They Systematically Conduct Country Program Evaluation?
An In-Depth International Comparison of Major Donor Agencies: How Do They Systematically Conduct Country Program Evaluation?
复制标题
主要捐助机构的深入国际比较：它们如何系统地进行国家计划评估？
DOI：
10.56645/jmde.v8i18.349
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Sasaki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Sasaki
背景：本文对援助评估的制度和程序进行了深入的国际比较，重点介绍了主要捐助机构之间的国家项目评估。本研究最初的客户是日本外务省（Ministry of Foreign Affairs， MOFAJ）。目的：本文的目的是：(1)了解援助机构如何进行国别项目评估；(2)为改善援助评估界目前的国别项目评估做法提出建议。背景：审查的捐助者包括：世界银行（WB）、亚洲开发银行（ADB）、美洲开发银行（IADB）、联合国开发计划署（UNDP）、美国（USAID）、加拿大（CIDA）、英国（DFID）、荷兰（IOB）、德国（BMZ）、法国（外交部）和日本（外务省）。此外，还审查了进行各自项目评估的援助机构，它们是JICA（日本），GTZ和KfW（德国）和AFD（法国）。干预：本研究从以下几个方面对各捐助机构进行了比较分析：(1)采用的评价标准；(2)评价“有效性”和“影响”的方法；(3)归属问题；（四）采用评级制度；(5)总体评价结论及综合方法。所有的观点都集中在国别方案评价上。一个结论是，大多数机构一直在为如何判断其国家项目的程度和价值而苦苦挣扎。数据收集和分析：采用混合方法从上述捐助机构收集数据。分析是通过系统程序进行的，包括：(i)在比较表中总结资料；（ii）尽可能根据共同特征进行分组/分类；（三）检查和总结导致他们差异的基本思想/哲学。研究发现：本研究对援助机构如何开展国别项目评估有了一些新的认识，并确定了仍存在的几个问题。人们观察到他们的做法各不相同，而且远非一致同意的统一方法。本研究发现的一些值得注意的问题是：(1)大多数援助机构援引发展援助委员会的五项评估标准进行国家项目评估。（主要例外是美国国际开发署）；(2)“战略相关性”和“一致性/互补性”是正在出现的新标准；(3)救援机构仍在努力解决归属问题；(4)各援助机构对引进评级制度的态度分歧明显。
Background: This paper presents an in-depth international comparison of systems and procedures of aid evaluation, focusing on Country Program Evaluation among major donor agencies. The original client of this study is Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan (MOFAJ). Purpose: The purposes of this paper are set as follows: (1) to understand how aid agencies conduct Country Program Evaluation; and (2) to make recommendations for improvement of the current practice of Country Program Evaluation in the aid evaluation community. Setting: The examined donors include: the World Bank (WB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the U.S. (USAID), Canada (CIDA), the U.K. (DFID), the Netherlands (IOB), Germany (BMZ), France (Foreign Ministry), and Japan (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFAJ)). In addition, aid agencies conducting respective project evaluation are also examined, and they are JICA (Japan), GTZ and KfW (Germany) and AFD (France). Intervention: This study presents the result of comparative analysis among those donor agencies in terms of the following viewpoints: (1) evaluation criteria employed; (2) approaches to evaluate “effectiveness” and “impact”; (3) attribution issue; (4) the use of a rating system; and (5) overall evaluative conclusion and integrating methods. All viewpoints are focusing on Country Program Evaluation. One conclusion is that most agencies have been struggling with how to judge the degree and value of their country programs. Data Collection and Analysis: Mixed methodologies were employed to collect data from the said donor agencies. The analysis was conducted by a systematic procedure consisting of: (i) summarizing information in a comparative table; (ii) trying to make groups/categories based on common characteristics if possible; and (iii) examining and concluding basic thoughts/philosophy which make their differences. Findings: This study made some new knowledge about how aid agencies conduct Country Program Evaluation and identified several issues remained. Varieties of their practices are observed and it is far from the unified methods agreed. Some remarkable points identified in this study are:(1) Most aid agencies invoke the DAC five evaluation criteria for Country Program Evaluation. (Major exception was USAID); (2) “Strategic relevance” and “coherence/complementarity” are the emerging new criteria; (3) Attribution is still the issue that aid agencies have struggled; and (4) The attitude for introduction of rating system is clearly divided among aid agencies.