Syndicate content

Impact evaluation

Appointing a gender equal cabinet is good for Canada – but not for the reason you think

Florence Kondylis's picture

Recently, Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, appointed a cabinet that is 50% female. Explaining the choice, Trudeau stated that it was important “to present to Canada a cabinet that looks like Canada” – and “because it’s 2015.”

The announcement has been greeted with considerable backlash in the press, with some news outlets going as far as to imply that promoting diversity is not good for governance. This view implies an either or – that appointing women and incorporating gender balance, while good for the country’s diversity, would undermine the quality of governance. One could probably name many male candidates who on paper look more accomplished than some of Trudeau’s appointees.

Lights, camera, action on entertainment education!

Anushka Thewarapperuma's picture

Also available in: Español | Français | العربية

Behavior change campaigns are all around us. They remind us to get our flu shots; warn us that food and drinks are not allowed when using public transportation; even prompt us to turn off the lights when we leave a room. They invoke socially acceptable norms and indirectly guide us towards positive behavior change. The advent of an assortment of new technologies and mass media outlets enables us to spread last-mile awareness on handwashing, safe sex, and gender-based violence, to name just a few.

Indeed, we in development, and governments that we work with, invest millions of dollars in behavior campaigns. However, many of these campaigns are unconvincing, lack inspiring narratives, and are communicated through outmoded and uninteresting outlets such as billboards and leaflets. Research shows that traditional mass media interventions are often ineffective in promoting behavior change, especially in the long run (Grilli et al 2002, Vidanapathirana et al 2005).
Entertainment Education

How to boost student learning in South Asia

Amit Dar's picture

The Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs)—a set of international targets adopted by the international community last September at the United Nations—recognizes the central role that quality education for all plays in global development.
In South Asian countries, raising the quality of education is already a key policy objective given the development trajectories of these countries and the human capital they need to sustain economic growth.
While school enrollment in South Asia has significantly increased in the last two decades, access to quality education for all remains elusive. A major obstacle to achieving the SDGs by 2030 in South Asia is that vast numbers of children who are in school are not acquiring even basic skills such as reading and numeracy.

Getting communities involved in Pakistan schools

Aliza Marcus's picture
A community in Pakistan monitoring schools using mobile phones.
​​See the full slideshow here.

Photo credit: World Bank Impact Evaluation Team; WEITEK Group (Implementation firm)

Many schools lack basic facilities in Pakistan’s rural Sindh province. Students cram half-a-dozen to a bench, or sit on the floor. There’s no electricity or running water. Teachers often don’t show up. Children can’t always afford books, pencils and notebooks. The Government of Sindh has tried to help by revitalizing a program that gives annual grants to school management committees to use to improve education. 

Gender equality in transport is good for business: Suggestions to ensure successful gender mainstreaming

Catalina Crespo-Sancho's picture

Also available in: العربية

Women’s economic equality is good for business. It is clear that women play a fundamental role in building and sustaining the world economy.
They offer a powerful source of economic growth and opportunity. Women contribute not only to the formal economy, but also through the valuable and generally unpaid tasks of caregiving and homemaking. It has been proven that better opportunities in education, health, employment, and policies lead to better well being for women, their communities and — in turn — the economic and social well-being of a country.
However, only recently has the relationship of gender and infrastructure — more specifically, transport — and the role it plays in a country’s social and economic well-being been addressed.
Transport networks are one of the most important elements of a country’s infrastructure, and they are key to reducing poverty and promoting equality. A country’s transport infrastructure generally centers on enabling the supply of goods, connecting and providing access to people, services and trade, with the objective of bringing economic prosperity to a nation. However, it has been only in the past five to ten years that infrastructure projects have started to include gender awareness as part of their investment decisions.
As women become even more central to a country’s economy, addressing their transportation needs takes on an essential role in promoting economic growth and prosperity.

What does it mean to do policy-relevant research and evaluation?

Heather Lanthorn's picture

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) researchers upload the data to see the resultsWhat does it mean to do policy-relevant research and evaluation? How does it differ from policy adjacent research and evaluation? Heather Lanthorn explores these questions and offers some food for thought on intention and decision making.

This post is really a conversation with myself, which I started here, but I would be happy if everyone was conversing on it a bit more: what does it mean to do research that is ‘policy relevant’? From my vantage point in impact evaluation and applied political-economy and stakeholder analyses, ‘policy relevant’ is a glossy label that a researcher or organization can apply to his/her own work at his/her own discretion. This is confusing, slightly unsettling, and probably dulls some of the gloss off the label.

The main thrust of the discussion is this: we (researchers, donors, folks who have generally bought-into the goal of evidence- and evaluation-informed decision-making) should be clear (and more humble) about what is meant by ‘policy relevant’ research and evaluation. I don’t have an answer to this, but I try to lay out some of the key facets, below.
Overall, we need more thought and clarity – as well as humility – around what it means to be doing policy-relevant work. As a start, we may try to distinguish work that is ‘policy adjacent’ (done on a policy) from work that is either ‘decision-relevant’ or ‘policymaker-relevant’ (similar to ‘decision-relevant,’ (done with the explicit, ex ante purpose of informing a policy or practice decision and therefore an intent to be actionable).
I believe the distinction I am trying to draw echoes what Tom Pepinsky wrestled with when he blogged that it was the “murky and quirky” questions and research (a delightful turn of phrase that Tom borrowed from Don Emmerson) “that actually influence how they [policymakers / stakeholders] make decisions” in each of their own idiosyncratic settings. These questions may be narrow, operational, and linked to a middle-range or program theory (of change) when compared to a grander, paradigmatic question.
Throughout, my claim is not that one type of work is more important or that one type will always inform better decision-making. I am, however, asking that, as “policy-relevant” becomes an increasingly popular buzzword, we pause and think about what it means.

Building evidence-informed policy networks in Africa

Paromita Mukhopadhyay's picture

Evidence-informed policymaking is gaining importance in several African countries. Networks of researchers and policymakers in Malawi, Uganda, Cameroon, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, Benin and Zimbabwe are working assiduously to ensure credible evidence reaches government officials in time and are also building the capacity of policymakers to use the evidence effectively. The Africa Evidence Network (AEN) is one such body working with governments in South Africa and Malawi. It held its first colloquium in November 2014 in Johannesburg.  

Africa Evidence Network, the beginning

A network of over 300 policymakers, researchers and practitioners, AEN is now emerging as a regional body in its own right. The network began in December 2012 with a meeting of 20 African representatives at 3ie’s Dhaka Colloquium of Systematic Reviews in International Development.

Buffet of Champions: What Kind Do We Need for Impact Evaluations and Policy?

Heather Lanthorn's picture
I realize that the thesis of “we may need a new kind of champion” sounds like a rather anemic pitch for Guardians of the Galaxy. Moreover, it may lead to inflated hopes that I am going to propose that dance-offs be used more often to decide policy questions. While I don’t necessarily deny that this is a fantastic idea (and would certainly boost c-span viewership), I want to quickly dash hopes that this is the main premise of this post. Rather, I am curious why “we” believe that policy champions will be keen on promoting and using impact evaluation (and subsequent evidence syntheses of these) and to suggest that another range of actors, which I call “evidence” and “issue” champions may be more natural allies. There has been a recurring storyline in recent literature and musings on (impact) evaluation and policy- or decision-making:
  • First, the aspiration: the general desire of researchers (and others) to see more evidence used in decision-making (let’s say both judgment and learning) related to aid and development so that scarce resources are allocated more wisely and/or so that more resources are brought to bear on the problem.
  • Second, the dashed hopes: the realization that data and evidence currently play a limited role in decision-making (see, for example, the report, “What is the evidence on evidence-informed policy-making”, as well as here).
  • Third, the new hope: the recognition that “policy champions” (also “policy entrepreneurs” and “policy opportunists”) may be a bridge between the two.
  • Fourth, the new plan of attack: bring “policy champions” and other stakeholders in to the research process much earlier in order to get up-take of evaluation results into the debates and decisions. This even includes bringing policy champions (say, bureaucrats) on as research PIs.

There seems to be a sleight of hand at work in the above formulation, and it is somewhat worrying in terms of equipoise and the possible use of the range of results that can emerge from an impact evaluation study. Said another way, it seems potentially at odds with the idea that the answer to an evaluation is unknown at the start of the evaluation.

Do impact evaluations tell us anything about reducing poverty?

Markus Goldstein's picture
I recently was thinking about what impact evaluations in development can tell us about poverty reduction.  On one level this is a ridiculous question.  Most of the impact evaluations out there are designed to look at interventions to improve people's lives and the work is done in developing countries, so it follows that we are making poor people's lives better, right?   That's less obvious.