Arm’s length aid work challenges evaluation of impact n Disadvantage increases disabling conditions n Women count cost of divorce n


NEWS


Celebrity makes an impact on elites but not the public n Ethnicity in politics online n Child conduct and callousness n Public support for Armed Forces high n Centralised resource on infant sleep n High costs of leaving Islam n


Designing for those with learning difficulties n Diversity vital for high streets n


Separation agreements prove popular with Scottish couples n NEWS


Arm’s length aid work challenges evaluation of impact


THE INCREASING IMPORTANCE of risk management means that rigorous evaluation of the impact of aid spending has become more difficult due to a growing tendency for aid agencies to withdraw international aid personnel from the societies in which they work, says researcher Professor Mark Duffield. Since the 1990s, aid agencies have expanded their reach and ambitions in war-affected or chronically fragile states, providing humanitarian assistance and engaging in a variety of ambitious programmes of social and political transformation led and funded by Western donor governments. This has both raised their profile and increased the security risks they face. Aid work is now more dangerous than in the past and security initiatives to protect international aid personnel have resulted in withdrawal of many into fortified compounds, secure offices and residential complexes, combined with restrictive security and travel protocols. “This ‘bunkerisation’ has


contributed to the growing physical and social detachment of many international aid personnel from the societies in which they work, and a substantial shift towards aid managers attempting to administer or evaluate programmes from a safe distance, through national and local field workers, subcontracted


intermediaries and new technologies such as mobile phones and skype,” says Professor Duffield. In a 28-month project, researchers examined how international agencies and aid workers in South Sudan and Afghanistan have adapted to working in challenging environments as well as the attitudes of host communities to the international aid system. Findings


“ The contradiction between the


expectation that agencies maintain or expand their operations in conflict- affected countries, and the pressures to limit exposure of international staff seems irreconcilable. The fundamental contradiction between ‘staying’ and ‘staying safe’ suggests that bunkerisation and remote management are not only here to stay but are simply being


Bunkerisation has contributed to the


growing physical and social detachment of many international aid personnel


point to a growing remoteness or physical separation of international aid workers and a growing risk aversion among international aid agencies as regards their international personnel. As a consequence, aid agencies often attempt to maintain aid programmes through various forms of arm’s-length subcontracting and risk transfer. More subcontracting to national


and local aid workers has increased problems relating to monitoring and evaluating projects and highlighted the difference between national and international aid workers with the former now exposed to higher levels of security risks without the same level of protections as international staff.


addressed through better or smarter operational security management. The difficulties faced by aid agencies


in monitoring their work directly in the field, and growing reliance on remote methodologies, constitutes a crisis of evaluation, says Professor Duffield. “At a time of austerity there is a concern that funds are being spent on aid projects when the possibility of rigorous and independent evaluation is no longer an option in many recipient countries.” n


” i Contact Professor Mark Duffield,


University of Bristol Email m.duffield@bristol.ac.uk Telephone 0117 331 7583 ESRC Grant Number RES-167-25-0439


SPRING 2014 SOCIETY NOW 3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32