IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cdipxx/v29y2019i6p697-707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do results-based management frameworks frustrate or facilitate effective development practice? Irish international development sector experiences

Author

Listed:
  • Susan P. Murphy
  • Enida Friel
  • Grace McKiernan
  • Patrick Considine
  • Angelina De Marco
  • Aaron Cunningham
  • Molly Middlehurst

Abstract

Utilising a case study methodological approach to analyse the Irish practitioner experience, this article examines if the introduction of results-based frameworks (RBFs) have led to greater impact and accountability to beneficiaries. The findings point to evidence of early resistance to RBFs based upon concerns regarding resources, inflexibility in programming, and the perceived focus on accountability to donors over beneficiaries. However, findings also point to opportunities that could facilitate more effective development in practice. Indications suggest RBFs may facilitate a greater understanding of complexity, increased focus on outcomes and impact through a systematic use of baseline measurements, and improved adaptive programming.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan P. Murphy & Enida Friel & Grace McKiernan & Patrick Considine & Angelina De Marco & Aaron Cunningham & Molly Middlehurst, 2019. "Do results-based management frameworks frustrate or facilitate effective development practice? Irish international development sector experiences," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(6), pages 697-707, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:29:y:2019:i:6:p:697-707
    DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2019.1604631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614524.2019.1604631
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09614524.2019.1604631?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:29:y:2019:i:6:p:697-707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cdip .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.