4.1 Editorial Material

Introduction: Contribution, Causality, Context, and Contingency when Evaluating Inclusive Business Programmes

期刊

出版社

INST DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
DOI: 10.19088/1968-2022.102

关键词

value chains; impact evaluation; market systems; realist evaluation; contribution analysis; theory-based evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The private sector has played an important role in making market systems more beneficial to smallholders and low-income consumers. Evaluating inclusive business programs is the main focus of this IDS Bulletin. This article presents practical experiences of practitioners and academics using theory-based evaluation. It highlights the approaches and methods used to assess systemic change and provide learning for adaptive management. The article explores the synergy of iterative reflections on the theory of change, the analytical approach of realist evaluation, and the conceptualization of changes in firms' practices.
The private sector has become an important partner in development interventions that aim to make market systems more favourable for smallholders and low-income consumers of food. How to evaluate these inclusive business programmes is the central theme of this IDS Bulletin. It presents real-world experiences of practitioners and academics using theory-based evaluation. This introductory article highlights the approaches and methods used to assess systemic change and provide learning for adaptive management. It acknowledges the limits to attributing outcomes to programmes alone and proposes a way to generalise about effectiveness where outcomes are highly contingent on a specific contextual embedding. The article explores the synergy of the iterative reflections on the theory of change, the analytical approach of realist evaluation, and the conceptualisation of changes in firms' practices as emerging from behaviour systems where the motivations, opportunities, and capabilities of firms are not equally distributed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据