From lesson-learning to accountability? Dutch development aid evaluation in transnational perspective, 1964-1977 ABSTRACT The effectiveness and efficiency of modern development aid has been criticized since its post-war inception. Commentators note the lack of feedback and accountability; the sector does not learn from its past mistakes, and no one takes responsibility in case of clear failures. Evaluation, then, is an instrument that enhances both feedback and accountability. Aid evaluation in one form or another takes place on a massive scale nowadays. How and why did it come into being? This thesis traces the roots of aid evaluation in the Netherlands in the 1960s and 1970s. It shows that, in the context of growing academic knowledge and international consultation, discussions on the purpose and the locus of evaluation led to the establishment of a dual system of aid evaluation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Civil servants shaped these debates without significant and direct influence of parliament. Paul Schilder (3978478) Supervisor: dr. L. van de Grift Second reader: prof. dr. B.A. de Graaf Research MA Modern History (1500-2000) Utrecht University 30 835 words 15 August 2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would have taken even more time and effort to finish this thesis without the help and presence of a number of people. One of the professors convincing me to dig deeper and think more critically was Oscar Gelderblom. My debt of gratitude to him is incredibly big, not just for inspiring me intellectually but also for keeping faith in my abilities, for hiring me as his research assistant and for not kicking me off the research master’s programme. I would also like to thank, of course, my thesis supervisor Liesbeth van de Grift with whom I had the pleasure of working for the past year. She warned me it would be hard to write a thesis next to doing an internship. She was absolutely right, and without her critical guidance along the road, I would not have finished my thesis before September 2019. Many others deserve a word here. I had a wonderful time with my friends at Odysseus and UUMUN during the master’s programme. They reminded me that there is much more out there than studying. My library buddies Jasper, Hans, Guus, Duco, and Alessandra set a great example by finishing their own theses, and offered great relief when I needed a break in the library. I want to thank my colleagues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who introduced me to the world of diplomacy during my internship. And lastly, of course, I thank my family and (former) roommates who accepted that I annoyingly asked for attention during many stages of the process. Paul Schilder RMA Thesis Paul Schilder – From lesson-learning to accountability? | 1 TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 I. COMING OF AGE: DEVELOPMENT AID BETWEEN 1964 AND 1977 .................................................................. 11 II. AID EVALUATION ACROSS THE BORDER, 1966-1975 ............................................................................................. 39 III. FROM IDEA TO PRACTICE: INSTITUTIONALIZING DUTCH AID EVALUATION, 1964-1977 ................... 59 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 RMA Thesis Paul Schilder – From lesson-learning to accountability? | 2 INTRODUCTION ‘Do good and do not look back.’1 With this characterization historians Peter Malcontent and Jan Nekkers introduced their study of fifty-year history of Dutch development cooperation in 1999. The study indicated that aid evaluation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) was scarce and played only a limited role in policy changes. Eight years later, former Minister for Development Cooperation Jan Pronk (1973-1977, 1989-1998) replied in a speech for the Evert Vermeer Stichting.2 Aid evaluation existed, he argued, at least since the 1960s. Moreover, Pronk emphasized that he had been an important figure in the establishment of aid evaluation in the Netherlands. He was a member of the Werkgroep Janssen, a group of university researchers commissioned by the MFA in 1965 to conduct the first overall evaluation of Dutch aid policy. Pronk allegedly followed the recommendations of the Werkgroep when he became Minister in 1973.3 Despite his serious counterarguments, Pronk’s speech was not picked up by historians, nor has there been a study on these early days of Dutch aid evaluation.4 As a matter of fact, more critics have pointed out a lack of evaluation within the aid sector. In 2006 former World Bank economist William Easterly published the bestselling The White Man’s Burden. Easterly denounces development aid for its lack of feedback from below and accountability from above. He explains his argument by a simple dichotomy: foreign aid employs planners where it requires searchers. Planners, a stereotype for visionaries, celebrities, presidents, chancellors of the exchequer, bureaucracies, (...) announce good intentions but don’t motivate anyone to carry them out; Searchers find things that work and get some reward. Planners raise expectations but take no responsibility for meeting them; Searchers accept responsibility for their actions. Planners determine what to supply; Searchers adapt to local conditions.5 1 ‘Doe wel en zie niet om.’ In: P.A.M. Malcontent, J.A. Nekkers, ‘Inleiding. “Doe wel en zie niet om”’ in: J.A. Nekkers, P.A.M. Malcontent (eds.), De geschiedenis van vijftig jaar Nederlandse ontwikkelingssamenwerking 1949-1999 (The Hague 1999) 11. 2 Former Dutch ngo, allied with the Labour Party and currently incorporated into the Foundation Max van der Stoel. The Evert Vermeer Stichting was a think tank and lobby organization for social democratic aid policy. 3 J.P. Pronk, ‘Doe wel en zie niet om’ (1 February 2007) http://www.janpronk.nl/speeches/dutch/doe- wel-en-zie-niet-om.html (consulted 12 March 2019). 4 Interestingly, the efficiency and effectiveness of development aid frequently resurfaces in Dutch media, e.g.: J. Born, ‘“Effect van miljoenen aan ontwikkelingshulp moet beter worden onderzocht”’ (9 July 2019) https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/effect-van-miljoenen-aan-ontwikkelingshulp-moet-beter-worden- onderzocht/ (consulted 12 August 2019); Dr. Kelder en Co, ‘Het “rendement van ontwikkelingssamenwerking’, (1 December 2018) https://www.nporadio1.nl/dr-kelder-en- co/onderwerpen/481922-het-rendement-van-hulp (consulted 12 August 2019). 5 W. Easterly, The White Man’s Burden. Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (New York 2006) 5-6. RMA Thesis Paul Schilder – From lesson-learning to accountability? | 3 Among the planners is, for example, Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia Unversity professor and special advisor to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General. Easterly takes Sachs’ plan for a Big Push to end poverty as an example of the simplicity of thought present in the development community. In Easterly’s view such a plan is doomed for failure and, moreover, failure would not result in resignations and dismissals. After all, evaluations are carried out not by independent researchers but by development agencies themselves, leading them to overestimate the successes of aid.6 Development scholar Arturo Escobar added that when evaluation occurs, it takes ‘place as part of a process that is largely self-referential, to the extent that these documents are written not to illuminate a given problem but to ensure their insertion into the ongoing flow of organizational texts.’7 There is, Escobar argued, no honest and thorough communication between evaluators, policymakers, and local communities. More recently, scholars have focused on the way these actors have engaged with each other and cooperated in policymaking and policy implementation. Scholars have also put more effort in understanding the actual impact of policies.8 This renewed focus shows that development stands for various ideas and practices that have always been highly contested both inside policymaking circles, among officials implementing policies on the ground, and within local communities. Historian Marc Dierikx follows this new wave of scholarship in studying the actual implementation of Dutch aid on the ground.9 He concludes that policymakers in The Hague were often unaware of the local context, execution and results of individual projects. Officials executing the projects then discovered that putting ideas into practice proved to be much harder than expected.10 In order to learn from such experiences and to hold relevant Ministers accountable, commentators promoted the institutionalization of evaluation. At the Dutch MFA, evaluation 6 Easterly, The White Man’s Burden, 3-4. 7 A. Escobar, Encountering Development: the making and unmaking of the Third World (Princeton 1995) 112. 8 E.g. C. Unger, Entwicklungspfade in Indien. Eine internationale Geschichte, 1947-1980 (Göttingen 2015).