Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Foreign Aid for DevelopmentIssues, Challenges, and the New Agenda$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

George Mavrotas

Print publication date: 2010

Print ISBN-13: 9780199580934

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580934.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 02 December 2020

Monitoring and Evaluation Reform under Changing Aid Modalities

Monitoring and Evaluation Reform under Changing Aid Modalities

Chapter:
(p.222) 10 Monitoring and Evaluation Reform under Changing Aid Modalities
Source:
Foreign Aid for Development
Author(s):

Nathalie Holvoet

Robrecht Renard

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580934.003.0010

This chapter grew out of our bewilderment with the insouciance with which some in the donor community seem ready to abandon accounting for the use of aid. If one listens to the rhetoric surrounding the new approach to aid, one gets the impression that most of the crucial accounting tasks must be swiftly abandoned by donors and left to recipient governments. This chapter does not question the underlying rationale for shifting towards recipient-led priority setting and control over implementation of aid resources, but argues that donors cannot let themselves off the hook so easily with respect to the accountability part of the equation. We argue that in most low-income countries such trust in recipient systems may be dubbed as over-alignment, and that it is neither necessary nor useful. Our argument is however not that old style donor-managed monitoring and evaluation is the only or the best solution. For we are equally puzzled by the stubbornness with which some other donors stick to their old monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in ways that contradict the new insights in aid effectiveness and hamper the emergence of national M&E systems. Why are positions so polarized and why is hardly anyone arguing in favour of intermediate positions? This is what this chapter sets out to do: we argue against a radical and rapid implementation of the new rhetoric in low-income countries, but also against a continuation of present accountability practices. Donors have a large and lasting responsibility in accounting for the use of aid funds, both towards the taxpayers in donor countries and towards the targeted beneficiaries in the at best pseudo-democratic and poorly governed low-income recipient countries. They should find new ways to remain firmly involved in M&E, ways that allow, at the same time, embryonic national M&E systems in low-income recipient countries to grow and flourish.

Keywords:   aid, modalities, reform, accountability, feedback, alignment, diagnosis of monitoring and evaluation, low-income recipient countries

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .