Integrating Value for Money and Impact Evaluations : Issues, Institutions, and Opportunities
This mixed methods study investigates why fewer than one in five impact evaluations integrates a value-for-money analysis of the development intervention being evaluated. This study distills four main insights from combined analysis of 33 semi-stru...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/862091571145787913/Integrating-Value-for-Money-and-Impact-Evaluations-Issues-Institutions-and-Opportunities http://hdl.handle.net/10986/32586 |
| Summary: | This mixed methods study investigates
why fewer than one in five impact evaluations integrates a
value-for-money analysis of the development intervention
being evaluated. This study distills four main insights from
combined analysis of 33 semi-structured and unstructured
interviews, surveys of 497 policy makers and 16 journal
editors, and portfolio analyses of World Bank and worldwide
impact evaluations. The study finds that low levels of
training in cost data collection and analysis methods,
together with a lack of standardization of the
value-for-money assumptions (e.g., time horizons, discount
rates, and economic or financial cost accounting) limit
value-for-money integration into impact evaluations. Further
eroding researchers' incentives, demand for cost
evidence from the journals that publish impact evaluations
is mixed. Ill-defined standards of rigor undermine
editors' capacity to evaluate the quality of
value-for-money analysis when it is integrated with impact
evaluation evidence. Institutional funders of impact
evaluations do not consistently demand that cost analysis be
integrated into their funded evaluations. This study finds
no evidence in support of the myth that policymakers do not
demand cost evidence. Rather, it finds that researchers have
few ways of knowing what kind of analysis policymakers need
and when they need it. Improving the stock of impact
evaluators who are cross trained in value-for-money methods,
establishing standards in what constitutes rigor in costing,
resolving methodological issues, and improving linkages
between policymakers and researchers would lead to greater
integration of value-for-money methods in impact evaluations. |
|---|