Opinion | How monitoring and evaluation framework masks failure
Summary
Development programmes in Nepal rely on monitoring and evaluation systems that often measure what is easy to count while missing real outcomes and unintended harm. The article argues that donor-driven frameworks can end up legitimising failure rather than preventing it, especially in post-earthquake reconstruction.
Key Points
- Nepal’s development programmes are dominated by monitoring and evaluation frameworks that prioritise measurable outputs over real-world outcomes.
- The article argues that indicators and logframes often hide unintended consequences, such as poor use of toilets or debt created by reconstruction schemes.
- Post-earthquake housing reconstruction shows how donors and implementers chose convenient metrics, such as instalments paid, instead of more meaningful measures like completion certificates.
- The piece calls for more flexible learning-oriented systems, but says deeper institutional change is needed for M&E to work differently.
.png)