Do results-based management frameworks frustrate or facilitate effective development practice? Irish international development sector experiences

ABSTRACT

Utilising a case study methodological approach to analyse the Irish practitioner experience, this article examines if the introduction of results-based frameworks (RBFs) have led to greater impact and accountability to beneficiaries. The findings point to evidence of early resistance to RBFs based upon concerns regarding resources, inflexibility in programming, and the perceived focus on accountability to donors over beneficiaries. However, findings also point to opportunities that could facilitate more effective development in practice. Indications suggest RBFs may facilitate a greater understanding of complexity, increased focus on outcomes and impact through a systematic use of baseline measurements, and improved adaptive programming.

KEYWORDS:

• Aid – Accountability, Aid effectiveness, Development policies
• Civil society – NGOs

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Susan P. Murphy is a Lecturer in Development Practice and Course Coordinator of the MSc in Development Practice, School of Natural Sciences, Geography, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin, Ireland.

Enida Friel is Programme Quality Manager at Oxfam Ireland.

Grace McKiernan is undertaking an MSc in Development Practice, Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin.

Patrick Considine is undertaking an MSc in Development Practice, Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin.

Angelina De Marco is undertaking an MSc in Development Practice, Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin.

Aaron Cunningham is undertaking an MSc in Development Practice, Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin.

Molly Middlehurst is undertaking an MSc in Development Practice, Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin.

ORCID

Susan P. Murphy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2270-9198

Notes

1 In this article we draw upon Cavill and Sohill’s (2007) taxonomy of accountability, focusing specifically on upward and social accountability.

2 Upward accountability: the accountability NGOs have to their donors who fund their programmes; horizontal accountability: NGOs are accountable to fellow peers and actors in the sector to ensure they are meeting shared values, respecting set standards, and, most importantly, not harming the reputation of the sector. Instantiation of sound principles or strategy is one of the most frequently cited attributes of particularly effective organisations (Mitchell 2015); internal accountability: NGOs are accountable to their staff, ensuring mission values and beliefs are upheld at all times; downward/social accountability: frequently regarded as crucially important but ultimately difficult to fulfil, NGO accountability to beneficiaries is the foundation which should define the other three tiers.