The report (summary) mentions the reorganization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and emphasizes the decentralization of the budgets. But what about the integration of Development Cooperation in Foreign Affairs – has this affected (positively or negatively) the effectiveness of development cooperation (at headquarters and/or in the field)? The summary mentions, for example, that the number of partner countries wasn’t brought down sufficiently, that there was too much policy and too few priorities. Is this in any way related to the different agendas of foreign affairs and development cooperation? Are there instances where institutional tensions inhibit decision-making? Is the development cooperation policy the result of political, difficult and lengthy negotiations in which the interests of Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation often/sometimes clash?   Read more>>

In its evaluation of the Dutch Africa policy the IOB presents some interesting findings, which in turn raise a number of critical questions.   Read more>>

The Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be commended for its brutally frank and highly critical but professional assessment of Dutch Africa aid policy over the period 1998–2006. It reiterates what has already been known for decades: the failure of Dutch Africa foreign aid policy in Africa. Few success stories can be identified, and over €2 billion of Dutch taxpayers’ money may have gone down the drain.   Read more>>

Please find below a number of general comments on the summary of the IOB evaluation. It is difficult to be more specific as I have seen neither the full evaluation nor the documents that were evaluated. However, judging from what I know of Swedish evaluations (and often policy documents) a lot can probably be said be said about the quality and reliability of the conclusions and recommendations in these documents.   Read more>>

None of the conclusions are really surprising. When will IOB change its way of analysis is the first question that comes to mind? And if IOB has evidence of what works in African circumstances they should make the case rather than implicitly referring to paradise! (‘it’ doesn’t focus on the root causes). Do we have replicable good practices that make an impact?   Read more>>

Let me start by acknowledging the perfect timing of this evaluation. Development strategies on Africa are currently deadlocked, while the continent is changing rapidly. Moreover, this evaluation is a kind of meta-study, making use of information from previous evaluations and new data at the same time. Such an approach should be encouraged in future evaluations whenever possible.   Read more>>

This is a curious evaluation. It takes a certain amount of daring, of course, to embark on an evaluation of this kind. It is a complex task, in terms of topics and themes, and of methodology. IOB seems to have lost its way in that complexity, in applying the methodology, but even more so in the analytical framework.   Read more>>

Reading the summary of the evaluation of eight years of Dutch Africa policy, I am struck by the tension that clearly exists between attempts to make development aid a technical activity, on the one hand, and various political demands on the other.   Read more>>

The IOB evaluation confirms the widespread problem of donors changing policy too often. Hence, whey they look back, it is sometimes hard to assess impact given the broken chain of policy decisions (too many new initiatives, so that nothing is given the chance to show fruit), and the failure to match practice to policy anyway (e.g. Sudan as a major recipient compared with lower allocations for non-partner countries). So policy inconsistency increases over time, both the policy itself and the inconsistency with allocations.   Read more>>

From the perspective of the UK, we look to the Netherlands for a generous, knowledge-based and well managed approach to aid. You are admired: for having taken the size of the aid programme out of political debate, by mandating a fixed 0.8% share; for having a strong academic base, in both natural and social sciences; for maintaining close relations between researchers and the policy makers in DGIS; for running an efficient aid programme; and for being reflective about what works and what does not. In addition, you are robust in international dialogue. The existence of the evaluation is testimony to the seriousness with which you take international development. There has been nothing comparable in the UK in terms of evaluation.   Read more>>