Outcomes and Impacts of Development Interventions

Brian Belcher,Markus Palenberg

doi:10.1177/1098214018765698

Abstract

The terms “outcome” and “impact” are ubiquitous in evaluation discourse. However, there are many competing definitions that lack clarity and consistency and sometimes represent fundamentally different meanings. This leads to profound confusion, undermines efforts to improve learning and accountability, and represents a challenge for the evaluation profession. This article investigates how the terms are defined and understood by different institutions and communities. It systematically investigates representative sets of definitions, analyzing them to identify 16 distinct defining elements. This framework is then used to compare definitions and assess their usefulness and limitations. Based on this assessment, the article proposes a remedy in three parts: applying good definition practice in future definition updates, differentiating causal perspectives and using appropriate causal language, and employing meaningful qualifiers when using the terms outcome and impact. The article draws on definitions used in international development, but its findings also apply to domestic public sector policies and interventions.

Highlights

The terms “outcome” and “impact” are ubiquitous in development evaluation discourse and in program documents of development interventions
We show in this article that these influential definitions, and many other definitions by different organizations and communities, are ambiguous and lack the conceptual clarity and precision needed for understanding, planning, and evaluating the complex development interventions, programs, and policies of our time
We demonstrate that a common definitional weakness is the use of an “intervention perspective” and related language that suggest that outcomes and impacts can be fully attributed to an intervention

Summary

Introduction

The terms “outcome” and “impact” are ubiquitous in development evaluation discourse and in program documents of development interventions. As we show later, this assumption is unrealistic for most development efforts, this definitional weakness can drive unrealistic expectations and reduce the effectiveness of programs attempting to cope with them This is worrisome in view of heightened attention to impact evaluation and result-based management (RBM) intended to increase the effectiveness of aid through learning, improved decision-making, and strengthened accountability (Mayne, 2007; Vahamaki, Schmidt & Molander, 2011). The most promising recent attempt seems to be the 2011 United Nations Development Group (UNDG, 2011) publication of a set of harmonized definitions intended to be used across the entire United Nations (UN) system Those definitions do not live up to the good practices and recommendations developed in this article and have not been adopted widely across the international development community. We use the term “development intervention” or “intervention” to refer to the activities of a project, program, or instrument in the field of international development

Result

Results level

X Item used but not defined X

Summary Observations

Conclusions