Transformation through Participation and Accountability: Exploring alternative approaches to Value for Money in Development Assistance
Authors:   , Pritchard Robyn 
Published: September 2022

<p><b>Development assistance allows governments to provide international aid for communities in need. However, governments need the ability to monitor and evaluate development activities in order to concentrate money to where aid is needed, and to provide transparency to taxpayers’ money being used to fund these projects. Development NGOs are viewed by government funding agencies as being able to provide social services at a lower cost than governments, having better access to and promoting the interests of the poor, and vital to democratic processes (Ebrahim, 2003; Lehman, 2007). In the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, the government is the primary donor of development assistance to NGOs. The accountability relationship in this case between the primary donor and development NGOs is largely supply-led with the donor setting programme objectives and funding NGOs to implement them primarily through locally led or “in-country” NGOs. The donor (MFAT) then holds the NGOs accountable through project reporting against their objectives. This includes providing evidence that development projects are able to show effective value for money (VFM). The VFM approach was developed in the late 1970s due to government pressure within departments for efficiency, economy and effectiveness, and as an answer to the public seeking mechanisms of accountability (Jacobs, 1998). VFM is fundamentally grounded in neoliberal principles which emphasise maximisation of profits and efficiency. A neoliberal approach to development assistance translates to quantification priorities in designing and delivering development aid (Jakupec & Kelly, 2015). Therefore, when development assistance is driven by a VFM focus, it builds an environment where people are treated as units to be measured and success is tied to return on investment of those units. In effect, this dehumanises the communities and beneficiaries of development assistance, denying their voice. </b></p>
<p>Accordingly, this study seeks to explore and understand critiques of the mainstream development approach: i.e. VFM informed by neoliberalism; so that alternative and viable approaches can be identified (and also critically discussed) to development that agree with a wider variety of perspectives. This study explores these questions from the perspectives of development practitioners through the qualitative method of interviews. A qualitative method enables a transformative approach to the research through understanding these different experiences and how they can be used to bring about change. This study advocates a critical dialogic approach to development assistance, enabling the voices of beneficiaries of development assistance. Specifically, a “relational accountability” model is applied to examine alternatives to development assistance. The aim of this study is to investigate the adverse impacts of VFM in development assistance from practitioner perspectives and explore the potential for alternative accountability approaches that can achieve the transformative aspirations of development assistance. This approach seeks to redistribute power and elevate voices that have previously been hidden through monologic narratives in a neoliberalist society.</p>