Bangladesh - Belgium

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study
4.5 Development Outcomes
Broader development outcomes include meta-goals such as poverty reduction,
human development and social justice, as well as more instrumental goals such as
economic growth and democracy. CVA interventions may not lead directly to or be
primarily responsible for these broader outcomes. However, changes in power, policy
and practice may play a role in the pathways leading to broader development goals
in the long term. In accordance with the evaluation questions, the main aim of the
framework is to identify and describe these pathways leading to development
outcomes, and to assess the extent to which individual interventions are likely to
make a more or less direct contribution to these.
The CVA evaluation considered the following questions:
• To what extent do donor interventions make explicit the link between CVA
outcomes and broader development outcomes? What are the specific broader
outcomes that CVA is expected to contribute to?
• Are there typologies of pathways leading from direct results (e.g. increased
capacity of actors) to intermediate outcomes (e.g. changes in power, policy
and practice of institutions) to the broader development outcomes of poverty
reduction, democracy and growth? Do they vary according to the end goals,
context or other factors?
There is an implicit model of change common to all donors in Bangladesh that links
governance reform more broadly to poverty reduction and MDG realization. This
evaluation has shown that there is anecdotal evidence of an instrumental role for
CVA in improving development outcomes in two inter-related ways: (i) by improving
the quality and accessibility of public services provided through CVA activities; and
(ii) by improving the economic and social well being of individuals and social groups
whose private entitlements have been successfully claimed. These improved
development outcomes have shown themselves in the cases study interventions in
the shape of improved livelihood security and incomes, intergenerational social and
professional mobility, enhanced service delivery, improved policies and (to a lesser
extent) budgetary allocations, reduced leakage of special provisions for the poor and
changing attitudes and behaviour. Yet there remain questions regarding the systemic
wider development impact of CVA interventions that can not easily be proven by this
type of evaluation.
Certainly, when the focus of the evaluation shifts to testing or proving the
instrumental value of CVA in poverty reduction and other MDGs, there is a concern
around scale and outreach which motivates donors, anxious to show the instrumental
rather than intrinsic value of CVA by attempting to scale up “models” with local
partners that may not be healthy or sustainable. These efforts are supported by a
results-based management approach within donor agencies that shifts attention
beyond inputs and outputs by encouraging the measurement of outcomes and
impacts. This is surely a positive shift to outcome-based and evidence-based
management, but there is an underlying tension if donors have to stretch their case
for engaging in CVA process interventions rather than delivering things directly in the
shape of infrastructure or services.
Samata’s recent evaluation (2007) has indicated that there are very good returns on
investment in terms of poverty reduction resulting not only from productive use of
land and water bodies transferred to members but from improved public service
delivery and reduction in bribe-giving. It is these latter benefits, Samata argues,
which encourages members to remain with the movement even when there is little
prospect of land acquisition. The solidarity of members around local resource
distribution (including safety net provisions) and preparedness to confront injustices
works as an effective means to ensure provision of public services to the poor.
31