I have implemented and evaluated numerous programs aimed at building resilience. However, when measuring the impact of large projects, I often find that the intended outcomes are not realized. A recurring issue lies in the theory of change, which is frequently overly ambitious—expecting, for example, that a single day of training will lead to improved income or solve food insecurity. This points to deeper design flaws, particularly the lack of meaningful involvement of local communities in shaping these programs.
After conducting over 20+ studies globally, I’ve come to believe that the problem doesn’t lie solely with donors. On the receiving end, local actors sometimes view these efforts as just another "project" rather than a genuine opportunity, and thus fail to take full advantage of what’s offered.
Evaluators, too, play a role—often producing reports that soften or overlook critical findings, rather than presenting an honest account of what the data reveal. It reminds me of an old Sanskrit fable: “ओष्ट्रनामे विवाहे देशु गीतं गायति गर्दभः, परस्परं प्रशंसतः—अहो रूपं, अहो ध्वनि:।”—"At the camel’s wedding, a donkey is invited to sing. Afterward, they praise each other: ‘What a beautiful voice!’ says the camel; ‘How handsome you are!’ replies the donkey.” This captures the tendency among donors and evaluators to complement each other, even when their efforts fall short of creating meaningful change in people’s lives.
RE: Do Big Projects Deliver Effective Solutions in a Complex World?
United States of America
Lila K Khatiwada
Sr Researcher
Pulte Institute, University of Notre Dame
Posted on 04/04/2025
I have implemented and evaluated numerous programs aimed at building resilience. However, when measuring the impact of large projects, I often find that the intended outcomes are not realized. A recurring issue lies in the theory of change, which is frequently overly ambitious—expecting, for example, that a single day of training will lead to improved income or solve food insecurity. This points to deeper design flaws, particularly the lack of meaningful involvement of local communities in shaping these programs.
After conducting over 20+ studies globally, I’ve come to believe that the problem doesn’t lie solely with donors. On the receiving end, local actors sometimes view these efforts as just another "project" rather than a genuine opportunity, and thus fail to take full advantage of what’s offered.
Evaluators, too, play a role—often producing reports that soften or overlook critical findings, rather than presenting an honest account of what the data reveal. It reminds me of an old Sanskrit fable: “ओष्ट्रनामे विवाहे देशु गीतं गायति गर्दभः, परस्परं प्रशंसतः—अहो रूपं, अहो ध्वनि:।”—"At the camel’s wedding, a donkey is invited to sing. Afterward, they praise each other: ‘What a beautiful voice!’ says the camel; ‘How handsome you are!’ replies the donkey.” This captures the tendency among donors and evaluators to complement each other, even when their efforts fall short of creating meaningful change in people’s lives.