Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)260-280
Number of pages21
JournalEuropean Journal of Development Research
Volume35
Issue number2
Early online date21 Oct 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 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

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this