Abstract
Research for development (R4D) funding is increasingly expected to demonstrate value for money (VfM). However, the dominance of positivist approaches to evaluating VfM, such as cost-benefit analysis, do not fully account for the complexity of R4D funds and risk undermining efforts to contribute to transformational development. This paper posits an alternative approach to evaluating VfM, using the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund as case studies. Based on a constructivist approach to valuing outcomes, this approach applies a collaboratively developed rubric-based peer review to a sample of projects. This is more appropriate for the complexity of R4D interventions, particularly when considering uncertain and emergent outcomes over a long timeframe. This approach could be adapted to other complex interventions, demonstrating that our options are not merely “CBA or the highway” and there are indeed alternative routes to evaluating VfM.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 260-280 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | European Journal of Development Research |
Volume | 35 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 21 Oct 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 30 Apr 2023 |
Bibliographical note
No funding was acknowledged.Funding
However, in November 2020, following the devastating economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK government announced that it was reducing its commitment to the UK aid budget. As a consequence of this, the funding for GCRF and the Newton Fund was reduced by £120 million for 2021–2022 (UKRI ), with significant consequences for work funded through GCRF and the Newton Fund. Despite this, the substantial investment in the funds thus far still provides a valuable opportunity to learn about the VfM of complex R4D funds, which can be used to improve future funding. Moreover, in the context of a heavily constrained spending environment, having sound methodologies for assessing the VfM of R4D is increasingly important, not only to be accountable to the UK taxpayer, but for the people in developing countries who are supposed to benefit from these funds.
Keywords
- Constructivist evaluation
- Economic evaluation
- Research for development
- Rubrics
- Value for money
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Development