Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
IMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE
Building Knowledge Through Evaluations and Research
Committee on Evaluation of USAID Democracy Assistance Programs
Development, Security, and Cooperation
Policy and Global Affairs
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. DFD-C-00-06-00091-0 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-11736-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11736-4
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
COMMITTEE ON THE EVALUATION OF USAID DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Jack A. Goldstone (Chair),
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Larry Garber,
New Israel Fund, Washington, DC
John Gerring,
Boston University, Boston, MA
Clark C. Gibson,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
Mitchell A. Seligson,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Jeremy Weinstein,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Staff
Jo L. Husbands, Senior Project Director
Paul Stern, Board Director
Tabitha Benney, Senior Program Associate*
Rita Guenther, Senior Program Associate
*
Until August 2007.
OCR for page R6
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R7
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
Preface
Since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has made support for democracy one of the major pillars of U.S. security policy. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been providing democracy assistance to countries around the world for over 25 years and has invested substantially in a variety of programs in diverse political situations. To better understand the impact of its democracy assistance efforts, the agency launched the Strategic and Operational Research Agenda (SORA). As part of SORA’s work, USAID asked the National Research Council to prepare a report on how best to evaluate USAID democracy and governance (DG) programs.
The National Academies appointed an ad hoc committee to work on this report, including scholars with long experience and varied methodological approaches to the study of democracy and democratization, and a former USAID mission director with field experience in implementing DG programs. I extend my deepest personal thanks to each of them for their many intellectual contributions to the committee’s work and for the time and effort they gave to the report. It was a pleasure to work with such outstanding colleagues.
To fulfill the mission given to the Academies, additional scholars were called on to help the committee examine key methodological issues in evaluating the impact of DG assistance. The committee’s deliberations with these scholars included a conference in Boston, Massachusetts, on issues in measuring democracy and a conference in Stanford, California, on how case studies of democratization and democracy assistance could
OCR for page R8
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
inform DG programming. The committee also contracted with several expert consultants in the design and implementation of program evaluations, from both the academic and policy implementation spheres, to visit several USAID missions to examine the feasibility and scope for developing impact evaluations of DG projects in the field. The committee owes great thanks to these scholars for their contributions to this report. (A full listing of participants and consultants is given in Appendixes B through E.)
The committee spent many sessions discussing evaluation procedures with representatives of USAID and former and current contractors for the agency’s DG programs. The committee is grateful to USAID for providing the time and assistance to set up these meetings and for their willingness to work through ideas and opportunities with the committee. In particular, the committee thanks three USAID officials who were the primary contacts throughout the project and whose support and advice were critical to the success of the committee’s work: Margaret Sarles, chief of the Strategic Planning and Research Division, and two members of the SORA staff—David Black, who served as project officer, and Mark Billera. David and Mark also accompanied the committee’s teams on their field visits. The goal was not merely to recommend abstract “ivory tower” ideas regarding project evaluations but to learn from USAID and provide recommendations that would be feasible in the field and useful on a variety of levels for USAID planning and program implementation.
The committee particularly wants to thank the USAID missions in Albania, Peru, and Uganda, who hosted committee members, staff, and consultants, and the USAID Washington officers who helped arrange those visits. The field visits were invaluable in determining how actual DG programs were being evaluated and learning how USAID staff and consultants could develop different evaluation designs for current and forthcoming USAID programs.
The committee also thanks the members of the National Research Council staff who provided substantive and administrative support for the project. Jo Husbands served as project director and helped guide the committee through dozens of meetings, lengthy deliberations, and the administrative hurdles of carrying out the committee’s ambitious goals. She also made substantial contributions to the many drafts of the report. Paul Stern offered sage advice throughout the process, particularly on methodological and measurement issues. Rita Guenther and Tabitha Benney provided research and administrative support, along with immense energy and good cheer. Rita also took the lead in drafting the report summarizing the three field visits and drafted several sections of the report. Three of them also took part in the field visits—Jo in Albania and Uganda, Rita in Albania and Peru, and Tabitha in Peru.
OCR for page R9
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
At a time when democracy assistance is becoming ever more important as part of international and U.S. policies to assist developing nations, build peace, and reduce conflict, the committee hopes this report can serve as a practical guide for policymakers and USAID mission staff. Foreign assistance donors and aid organizations in a variety of areas are demanding better proof of results and more certain knowledge on which to build future assistance programs. The committee provides recommendations on how USAID can design its activities to gain greater knowledge of which DG projects are most effective in the field and how to use that knowledge—drawing on both internal experience and outside expertise—to guide and improve future democracy assistance. It is hoped that the recommendations in this report will lead to not only more effective programs to assist the emergence and stabilization of democracies but also the adoption of evaluation methods that will improve aid effectiveness throughout the domain of U.S. foreign assistance.
Jack A. Goldstone
Chair
OCR for page R10
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R11
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Kenneth Bollen, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Valerie Bunce, Cornell University; Susan Hyde, Yale University; Robert Keohane, Princeton University; David Laitin, Stanford University; Carol Lancaster, Georgetown University; Ruth Levine, Center for Global Development; Michael Lund, Management Systems International; Gerald Munck, University of Southern California; Barbara Torrey, Population Reference Bureau, Inc.; and Nicholas van de Walle, Cornell University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Charles Tilly, Columbia University, and Enriqueta C. Bond, Burroughs Wellcome Fund. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were respon-
OCR for page R12
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
sible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R13
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
Contents
Summary
1
1
Democracy Assistance and USAID
17
U.S. Democracy Assistance: A Brief Introduction,
17
Democratic Development and Democracy Assistance: What Do We Know?,
23
USAID’s Request to the National Research Council,
27
Report Overview,
32
References,
38
2
Evaluation in USAID DG Programs: Current Practices and Problems
43
Introduction,
43
Current Evaluation Practices in Development Assistance: General Observations,
44
Current Policy and Legal Framework for USAID DG Assessments and Evaluations,
53
Three Key Problems with Current USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Practices,
58
Conclusions,
66
References,
67
3
Measuring Democracy
71
Introduction,
71
OCR for page R14
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
Problems with Extant Indicators,
73
A Disaggregated Approach to Measurement at the Country Level,
83
Conclusions,
94
References,
95
4
Learning from the Past: Using Case Studies of Democratic Transitions to Inform Democracy Assistance
99
Introduction,
99
Case Study Designs and Methods,
100
Insights from Current Research: Results of a Conference of Case Study Specialists on Democracy,
102
A Multicase Study Design to Generate and Investigate Strategic Hypotheses Regarding Democracy Assistance,
112
Conclusions,
116
References,
117
5
Methodologies of Impact Evaluation
119
Introduction,
119
Importance of Sound and Credible Impact Evaluations for DG Assistance,
120
Plan of This Chapter,
124
Points of Clarification,
124
Internal Validity, External Validity, and Building Knowledge,
127
A Typology of Impact Evaluation Designs,
132
Examples of the Use of Randomized Evaluations in Impact Evaluations of Development Assistance (Including DG Projects),
144
References,
148
6
Implementing Impact Evaluations in the Field
151
Introduction,
151
Field Visits to USAID Missions,
152
Employing Randomized Impact Evaluations for USAID DG Projects in the Field,
154
Challenges in Applying Randomized Evaluation to DG Programs,
168
Conclusions,
175
References,
176
OCR for page R15
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
7
Additional Impact Evaluation Designs and Essential Tools for Better Project Evaluations
177
Introduction,
177
How Often Are Randomized Evaluations Feasible?,
178
Designing Impact Evaluations When Randomization Is Not Possible,
181
What to Do When There Is Only One Unit of Analysis,
192
Conclusions,
196
References,
197
8
Creating the Conditions for Conducting High-Quality Evaluations of Democracy Assistance Programs and Enhancing Organizational Learning
199
Introduction,
199
Issues in Obtaining High-Quality Impact Evaluations,
199
Improving Organizational Learning,
208
Conclusions,
216
References,
217
9
An Evaluation Initiative to Support Learning the Impact of USAID’s DG Programs
219
Introduction,
219
Providing Leadership and Strategic Vision,
220
Implementing the Vision: The Evaluation Initiative,
222
Agenda for USAID and SORA,
228
Role of Congress and The Executive Branch,
230
Conclusions,
232
References,
232
Glossary
235
Appendixes
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
243
B Committee Meetings and Participants
247
C Measuring Democracy
259
D Understanding Democratic Transitions and Consolidation from Case Studies: Lessons for Democracy Assistance
285
E Field Visit Summary Report
289
F Voices from the Field: Model Questionnaire
315
OCR for page R16
Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research
This page intentionally left blank.
