How Can We Better Understand “Success” in International Development?

Dan Banik argues that the development community must embrace the complexity of measuring success in the difficult places they work. 

The history of international development policy and development aid is a complicated one, a mixture of hopeful altruism and difficult reality. Poverty and inequality appear as resilient as ever, and human development – understood as development that prioritizes human well-being and aims at enlarging opportunities, freedoms and choices – continues to proceed slowly in large parts of the world. Still, efforts by a wide range of actors to promote development and reduce poverty have, in recent times, yielded numerous positive results. The world has witnessed remarkable improvements in agricultural production, life expectancy and literacy— together with a reduction in child mortality and the incidence of infectious disease. However, it is not always clear what various stakeholders understand by the term “success”.

For the past couple of years, over 11000 students from over 150 countries have taken my free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), “What Works? Promising Practices in International Development”, where my colleagues and I highlight stories, cases, and events that can be considered “promising” or perhaps even “successful” in improving the well-being of the poor and contributing to overall societal progress. The goal has been to learn how to better understand what works—and to unpack how and why it works—as we consider global and national development programmes and anti-poverty interventions. Among the most popular themes in class discussions has been those related to understanding what constitutes “success” in development projects and programs.

When considering international development, there are a variety of ways to conceptualize success—and it is difficult, if not impossible, to reach agreement on a single way in which all development interventions can be assessed as being ‘successful’. Nonetheless, we can begin by posing a set of interrelated questions when trying to understand “What works” in development.

Such questions might include the following: What is the problem we have identified? Was it solved? What is the desired goal for the intervention? Was it achieved? If we focus on solving problems and achieving goals, then we have to tackle a further set of questions: identifying the most urgent types of problems that exist; durable solutions to these problems; the realistic goals that can be set; and the methods we must apply to measure the achievements of the project.

In understanding the impact of a specific project, some scholars highlight the importance of so-called triple constraints: time, budget, and scope. In other words: How long does it take to achieve an outcome? How much does it cost to achieve that outcome? How many people benefit from it? Related to the question of numerical impact is the question of which groups actually benefit from a project. For example, did the program or project target and benefit individuals and groups living in poverty?

Another question we must ask is whether the project resulted in positive changes in society that can be sustained over a considerable period of time. This is also related to the issue of capacity building, and we must ask whether a programme has equipped the community with skills to help themselves in the future, making them less dependent on outside intervention. A crucial factor in this context is an understanding of the actual pace of change rather than simply focusing on meeting project goals.

We might also consider a program as “successful” if we can replicate it in other places. But sometimes it is valuable to highlight and better understand what worked in one area, irrespective of whether this is replicable elsewhere. At the same time, we must be aware that success stories run the risk of being overstated as part of a strategy aimed at showcasing a project or an intervention in a positive light, irrespective of actual impact.

Many of the participants in the What Works MOOC are interested in understanding and interpreting success. And some have proposed a distinction between strict (narrow) and loose (broad) interpretations. Indeed, some claim that we often have a tendency of aiming too high, i.e. our expectations are sometimes unrealistic and contribute to a feeling of under-achievement. Another set of issues relates to the distinction between short-term and long-term impacts and direct and indirect results and impacts. What we measure, and the timespan we are concerned with, thus impacts the conclusion of whether a project has been successful.

Most participants in the MOOC highlight the importance of community buy-in. This includes the extent to which a community identifies a problem and then participates in developing adequate responses either on their own and/or with the help of interested individuals, groups and organisations. It is particularly important to ensure active participation of the community during the various phases of the project.

While we must learn from past mistakes, we must also re-think current practices related to monitoring of projects and their evaluation. Some argue that it is important to make such exercises less bureaucratic and time-consuming.

Understanding what works is intrinsically related to measurable as well as non-measurable impacts. Indeed, the development community must embrace the complexity of measuring success in development. If all parties involved agree on a set of indicators on what constitutes “success”, and how these can be best understood or measured from a project’s inception, we may be able to create a space for shared learning and best practice — allowing us to talk the same language. A common theme that has emerged in class discussions relates to viewing success as facilitating change that helps as many of the target population as possible, as cost-effectively as possible and, ensures progress for as long as possible.

Dan is a Professor of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway.

Image credit: Randen Pederson via Flcikr (CC BY 2.0)