Evaluation Gap Update
August 2006
In this issue:
Commitments to Close the Evaluation Gap Made in Bellagio, Italy
International leaders meeting in Bellagio, Italy, in June committed their support for the creation of an independent entity to sponsor rigorous impact evaluations of social programs in developing countries. At this Rockefeller Foundation-supported meeting, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, India's Institute for Financial Management and Research, the African Monitor, and bilateral agencies from the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada and Australia all expressed interest in being involved in such an effort. Meeting participants called for developing country governments to play a central role in the new entity and clarified which functions would be taken on by the new international effort and which could be done by existing groups. They also asked CGD to prepare for the launch of a new entity by convening a small group of committed developing country governments and donors to design it. Over the next six months, CGD will provide technical support while this group drafts a work plan and timetable for implementing activities to be undertaken during the next six months. For more information, including a list of meeting participants, see the press release in English (PDF) or en Español (PDF)
Experts and Policymakers Show Support for Closing the Evaluation Gap
Sixty-eight individuals have signed on to the Call to Action, requesting the international community create a mechanism for closing the evaluation gap. This statement was presented to the stakeholders at the Bellagio meeting, which helped demonstrate the widespread sentiment that new action must be taken to create an international initiative that will build knowledge and evidence by promoting reliable and valid studies of the impact of social programs and policies.
Launch of the Working Group Report
The CGD Evaluation Gap Working Gap launched their report, When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, on May 31 in Washington, DC. Opening addresses were made by the working group co-chairs Ruth Levine and William D. Savedoff, followed by a lively panel discussion that featured: Jon Baron, Executive Director, Coalition for Evidence-based Policy; David Gootnick, Director of International Affairs and Trade, US Government Accountability Office; Kenneth Peel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Development Finance and Debt, US Treasury; Nilmini Rubin, Professional Staff Member for International Economics, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and; Franck Wiebe, Managing Director for Economic Analysis, Millennium Challenge Corporation. You can watch Ruth Levine's opening address; watch William Savedoff's opening remarks; download the full text transcript (PDF) from the event; or download William Savedoff's Powerpoint presentation (PDF).
Forum on Aid Effectiveness and Impact Evaluation in the Boston Review
In the latest issue of the Boston Review, Abhijit Banerjee started a conversation among noteworthy academics and other observers with his article " Making Aid Work". He calls aid-givers "lazy thinkers" because they seldom take the time or energy required to find out whether the programs they support in developing countries actually work. He admits this is no easy task, but demonstrates one way to do better--assess program impact through randomized control trials. He doesn't claim such experiments are easy or inexpensive, but shows how not doing them can be very costly. Banerjee ends optimistically by describing some successful examples. This optimism, however, is countered by a number of published responses. Three current and former World Bank officials challenge Banerjee's argument by noting that macroanalytic questions cannot, for the most part, be evaluated using randomized trials. Princeton's Angus Deaton cautions against evidence-based aid becoming another development fad, and Harvard’s Robert Bates warns that an empirical approach to aid may make us lose sight of larger matters such as the proclivity for aid funding to impinge upon the sovereignty of developing nations. Banerjee responds to these commentaries with arguments for why experimental approaches can contribute to better development policymaking.
OECD/DAC Finds General Budget Support an Effective Way to Deliver Aid
OECD's Development Assistance Committee's Evaluation Network recently sponsored a joint evaluation on the effectiveness of providing foreign aid through general budget support as compared to other aid delivery mechanisms. The evaluation results do not tout general budget support as a cure-all for aid delivery problems, but demonstrate that its gradual introduction in countries with the necessary political will can strengthen the relationship between donors and country governments, strengthen national institutions, and encourage more equitable spending. One clear implication of a movement to general budget support is the need for recipient countries to obtain and use sound evidence about how best to spend that money to achieve social development aims.
Additional Resources on the Evaluation Gap
