EDITED BY Steven Masvaure, Takunda Chirau, Tebogo Fish & Candice Morkel Equitable evaluation EVALUATION: AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES – Volume 1 VOICES FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH Evaluation: African Perspectives Volume 1 Equitable evaluation Voices from the Global South Published by AOSIS Books, an imprint of AOSIS Scholarly Books, a division of AOSIS. AOSIS Publishing 15 Oxford Street, Durbanville, 7550, Cape Town, South Africa Postnet Suite 110, Private Bag X19, Durbanville, 7551, Cape Town, South Africa Tel: +27 21 975 2602 Website: https://www.aosis.co.za Copyright © Steven Masvaure, Takunda J Chirau, Tebogo Fish & Candice Morkel (eds.). Licensee: AOSIS (Pty) Ltd The moral right of the editors and authors has been asserted. Cover image: This cover design was created by Natascha Olivier/Coco Design with the use of a photograph by Jon Tyson {Bgd9VsD9EvQ} obtained from Unsplash.com, titled ‘Close view of graffiti wall’, available from https://unsplash.com/photos/close-view-of-graffiti-wall-Bgd9VsD9EvQ, license-free under the Unsplash.com licensing terms. Published in 2023 Impression: 1 ISBN: 978-1-77995-299-8 (print) ISBN: 978-1-77995-300-1 (epub) ISBN: 978-1-77995-301-8 (pdf) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459 How to cite this work: Masvaure, S, Chirau, TJ, Fish, T & Morkel, C (eds.) 2023, Equitable Evaluation: Voices from the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives Book Series, vol. 1, AOSIS Books, Cape Town. Evaluation: African Perspectives ISSN: 3005-9445 Series Editor: Steven Masvaure Printed and bound in South Africa. Listed in OAPEN (http://www.oapen.org), DOAB (http://www.doabooks.org/) and indexed by Google Scholar. Some rights reserved. This is an open-access publication. Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). A copy of this is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Enquiries outside the terms of the Creative Commons license should be sent to the AOSIS Rights Department at the above address or to publishing@aosis.co.za. Every effort has been made to protect the interest of copyright holders. Should any infringement have occurred inadvertently, the publisher apologises and undertakes to amend the omission in case of a reprint. The publisher accepts no responsibility for any statement made or opinion expressed in this publication. Consequently, the publishers and copyright holders will not be liable for any loss or damage sustained by any reader as a result of their action upon any statement or opinion in this work. Links by third-party websites are provided by AOSIS in good faith and for information only. AOSIS disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third-party website referenced in this work. https://www.aosis.co.za� http://Unsplash.com https://unsplash.com/photos/close-view-of-graffiti-wall-Bgd9VsD9EvQ http://Unsplash.com https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459 http://www.oapen.org http://www.doabooks.org/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ mailto:publishing@aosis.co.za EDITORS Steven Masvaure Takunda J Chirau Tebogo Fish Candice Morkel Evaluation: African Perspectives Volume 1 Equitable evaluation Voices from the Global South iv Social Sciences, Humanities, Education and Business Management domain editorial board at AOSIS Commissioning Editor: Scholarly Books Andries G van Aarde, MA, DD, PhD, D Litt, South Africa Board members Anthony Turton, Professor in the Centre for Environmental Management and Director of TouchStone Resources (Pty) Ltd, University of the Free State, South Africa Charles O’Neill, Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration, The British University in Egypt, El Sherouk, Cairo Governorate, Egypt Cheryl A Potgieter, Professor and Head of the Research and Doctoral Leadership Academy (RADLA) and Head of the GenderJustice, Health and Human Development research niche, Durban University of Technology, South Africa Christi van der Westhuizen, Associate Professor and Head of the Centre for the Advancement of Non- Racialism and Democracy (CANRAD) research programme, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa Emmanuel O Adu, Professor of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Fort Hare, South Africa Elphinah N Cishe, Professor of Nedbank Research Chair, Department of Continuing Professional Teacher Development, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Jayaluxmi Naidoo, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science Education, College of Humanities, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Johann Tempelhoff, Professor and Lead of the Cultural Dynamics of Water (CuDyWat) research niche and Head of the South African Water History Archival Repository, School of Basic Sciences, North-West University, South Africa Llewellyn Leonard, Professor of Environmental Management and Chair of the Centre for Excellence (CoE) (Adaptation and Resilience), School of Ecological and Human Sustainability, University of South Africa, South Africa Piet Naudé, Professor of Ethics related to Politics, Lead of the MBA programme in Business in Society and Leadership Development and Director of the University of Stellenbosch Business School, University of Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa Reina-Marie Loader, Programme Lead of the MA programme in Producing Film and Television and Lecturer in Film Production, Faculty of Media and Communication, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom Siphamandla Zondi, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Stanley Murairwa, Professor and Head of the Department of Business Sciences, College of Business, Peace, Leadership and Governance, Africa University, Zimbabwe Tembi Tichaawa, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Tourism, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Vusiwana C Babane, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of the Western Cape, South Africa Zilungile Sosibo, Professor of Education, Faculty of Education, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Peer-review declaration The publisher (AOSIS) endorses the South African ‘National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum Best Practice for Peer-Review of Scholarly Books’. The book proposal form was evaluated by our Social Sciences, Humanities, Education and Business Management editorial board. The manuscript underwent an evaluation to compare the level of originality with other published works and was subjected to a rigorous two-step peer-review before publication by two technical expert reviewers who did not include the volume editors and were independent of the volume editors, with the identities of the reviewers not revealed to the contributing editors or authors. The reviewers were independent of the publisher, editors and authors. The publisher shared feedback on the similarity report and the reviewers’ inputs with the manuscript’s editors or authors to improve the manuscript. Where the reviewers recommended revision and improvements, the editors or authors responded adequately to such recommendations. The reviewers commented positively on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and recommended that the book be published. v Research justification The World Health Organization (WHO) defines equity as the absence of preventable or remediable disparities among various groups of individuals, regardless of how these groups are delineated, whether by social, economic, demographic or geographic factors. The goal of equity is to eliminate the unfair and avoidable circumstances that deprive people of their rights. Therefore, inequities generally arise when certain population groups are unfairly deprived of basic resources that are made available to other groups. A disparity is ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’ when its cause is the result of the social context rather than biological factors. Equitable evaluation contends that conducting evaluation practices with an equity approach is more powerful, as evaluation is used as a tool for advancing equity. It emphasises that context, culture, history and beliefs shape the nature of evaluations, specifically in the diverse and often complex African reality. Equitable evaluation can render power to the powerless, offer a voice to the silenced and give presence to those treated as invisible. Evidence from various sources shows that inequality is prevalent in the African continent, hence the need to focus on evaluative solutions that address the  structural issues that contribute to the different forms of inequality, such as economic, political and social inequality. Despite a plethora of development interventions in the African continent, a large proportion of the population on the continent still lacks access to basic goods and services for survival. The effectiveness of developmental programmes in sub-Saharan Africa has been uncertain, to the extent that minimal inroads have been made in addressing key challenges such as poverty, inequality and, currently, the effects of climate change. The Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa, supported by the Ford Foundation, commissioned two volumes on equitable evaluation in the Global South. The book chapters explore the following: 1. It takes stock of what we know about inequality: What is inequality in the African context, and how does it affect the lives of the citizens of African countries? 2. What is equitable evaluation? How can the concept of equitable evaluation be adopted in evaluation practice? 3. What lessons can be learnt from evaluations of interventions that address inequality at various levels (sectoral, programmatic, project)? 4. What epistemological transformation in evaluation practice is needed to achieve an equitable society? 5. How have issues of inequality manifested within evaluation practice through organisations, institutions and international development? This book is the first of two volumes of voices from the Global South on equitable evaluation. The predominant methodology utilised is qualitative in nature. This scholarly book aims to invigorate academic discussions surrounding development programmes, with the goal of generating insights that can be utilised by evaluation commissioners and decision-makers in development programmes. These insights will help in addressing inequality and promoting a more equitable society in Africa through improved evaluation processes. The target audience for this book is primarily academics engaged in the field of developmental programmes in sub- Saharan Africa. No part of this work was plagiarised or published elsewhere. vi Steven Masvaure, Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Takunda J Chirau, Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Tebogo Fish, Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Candice Morkel, Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. This publication was made possible by the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa and generous support of the Ford Foundation. vii Contents Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xv List of abbreviations and acronyms xv List of figures xix List of tables xix Notes on contributors xxi Acknowledgement xxix Preface xxxi Introduction: Overview of the chapters 1 Steven Masvaure, Takunda J Chirau, Tebogo Fish & Candice Morkel Chapter 1: Inequality through the evaluation lens 7 Steven Masvaure, Tebogo Fish, Samukelisiwe Mkhize, Takunda J Chirau & Candice Morkel Introduction 7 What is inequality/inequity? 9 Equity, diversity, inclusion and inequality? 11 What are the root causes of inequality in the Global South? 13 Why is it important to deal with inequity? 14 Post-colonial development and inequality 16 Contribution of evaluation to addressing inequality 17 Conclusion 21 Chapter 2: Holding space for social justice and equity: The relational work of evaluators implementing a Made in Africa Evaluation approach 23 Amy Murgatroyd & Cecile Feront Introduction 23 Background 25 Western influence on evaluative practice 25 Rise of Made in Africa Evaluation 27 Translating Made in Africa Evaluation principles into practice 28 Research design 29 Contents viii Research setting 29 Research approach 30 Data-collection and analysis 30 Findings 33 How do we negotiate tensions and power dynamics in the evaluation ecosystem? 33 Moving towards ‘thinking partnerships’ 34 Acknowledging tensions between methodology and practice 35 Promoting mutual contextual understanding 36 Fostering buy-in on the value of immersion 37 How do we stay true to the lived experiences of participants? 37 Recognising the limits of a ‘return-on-investment’ approach 37 Capturing the impact ecosystem 38 Acknowledging the subjectivity of success 39 Understanding how the context impacts success 39 How do we ensure inclusivity and representation in evaluations? 40 Addressing identity dynamics 41 Co-creating evaluation frameworks through active participation 42 Embracing the plurality of values and ways of engagement 42 Allowing time and space to build trust and maintain relationships 43 Conclusion 44 Chapter 3: Programme evaluation as a reflection and perpetuator of inequality in the global political economy 47 Ayabulela Dlakavu Introduction 47 Methodological approach 48 Conceptual framework 50 Conceptualising programme evaluation 50 Conceptualising development 51 Global political economy and the hegemony of Global North knowledge and ideology therein 54 Overview of evaluation discourse, discipline and practice in Africa 54 Origins and evolution of programme evaluation 54 The impact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development on programme evaluation practice 56 Contents ix Evaluation capacity development in Africa: Perpetuation of Western evaluative thinking or a move towards transformation and equity in evaluation? 59 Recommendations for transforming programme evaluation discourse and practice in Africa 65 Conclusion 66 Chapter 4: ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ Un(masking) inequality by international institutions 69 Takunda J Chirau & Umali Saidi Introduction 69 Significance and research questions 71 Methods 72 Theoretical foundation 73 Programme evaluation 75 The evaluation ‘elephant’ in the room 76 Guarding the guards of development 82 Conclusion 86 Chapter 5: Unlocking climate change adaptation injustice through using intersectional analysis as an evaluation approach 89 Steven Masvaure Introduction 89 Research methods 92 Intersectional framework and Lydia’s predicament 92 Lydia’s multi-dimension of inequality 95 What should evaluators do to prevent perpetuating inequality? 98 Causal analysis of inequality 99 Measuring inequality in evaluation 100 Inequalities are embedded and the current system of international development reproduces inequalities 101 Evaluators should understand that the capacity to adapt is shaped by power relations 101 Evaluators need to understand that socially and economically disadvantaged and marginalised people are disproportionally affected by climate change 102 Evaluators must ask the right questions 103 Conclusion 103 Contents x Chapter 6: ‘Whose agenda is it?’ Reframing equity and justice in the evaluation of climate-smart agriculture 105 Samukelisiwe Mkhize Introduction 105 The climate adaptation agenda in food systems discourses: Unpacking the history of the problem, politics and policy dilemmas 105 Colonial era – paradigm shift 106 Post-colonial era – impact on agri-food systems 108 Emergence of the climate agenda in smallholder agri-food systems 108 Advocacy for a decolonial agenda in agri-food systems 109 Problem statement 110 Inquiry questions 111 Critical constructivism as a foundation for conducting a narrative review 111 Critical constructivism paradigm 111 Narrative review 112 Limitations 112 Agenda-setting and framing analyses in evaluative inquiry – what is in a discourse? 113 Characterising smallholder agriculture in Africa 116 Reframing climate equity and justice in climate-smart agriculture 117 Climate-smart agriculture 117 Dominant equity and justice frames underpinning under climate-smart agriculture 118 Distributive justice 119 Procedural justice 120 Interactional justice 120 Intergenerational justice 121 Restorative justice 122 Influence of dominant equity and justice frames on the outcome and impact orientation 123 Evaluation approaches and methodologies contribution to reframing equity and justice within climate-smart agriculture interventions 124 Interrogating distributive justice frames in the evaluation of climate-smart agriculture 125 Interrogating issues of procedural justice in the evaluation of climate-smart agriculture 126 Contents xi Interrogating issues of restorative justice in the evaluation of climate-smart agriculture 127 Interrogating issues of intergenerational justice in the evaluation of climate-smart agriculture 128 Opportunities and limitations for reframing in pursuit of equity and justice through evaluative inquiry 130 Conclusion 131 Chapter 7: Rethinking how gender inequality is framed in GBV prevention interventions: Learnings from a South African evaluation of interventions 133 Matodzi Amisi & Penny Parenzee Introduction 133 Literature review 136 What is gender inequality? 136 Gender inequality and gender-based violence 138 Methods 139 Papers reviewed 140 Findings and discussion 142 How is gender inequality represented to be? 142 What presuppositions or assumptions underpin this representation of gender inequality in South Africa? 143 How has this representation of gender inequality come about? 144 What is left unproblematic in the representation of gender inequality? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ have been thought about or articulated differently? 145 What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? 147 Lessons 148 Evaluation and evaluators 148 Gender-based violence prevention sector 150 Conclusion 151 Chapter 8: The role of evaluation practice in promoting the prioritisation of mental health equity on the public health agenda in Africa 153 Tebogo Fish Introduction 153 The treatment gap in Africa 154 Contents xii Study aim 156 Methods 156 Task-sharing interventions in Africa 157 Mental health Gap Action Programme 157 Programme for Improving Mental Health Care 158 Findings and analysis 159 Paper one 159 Paper two 163 Paper three 168 Discussion 171 Conclusion 175 Chapter 9: Mechanisms and strategies perpetuating evaluative inequalities in policy practice in Zimbabwe 177 Zacharia Grand & Sybert Mutereko Introduction 177 Background and context of the Global Fund in Zimbabwe 178 Conceptual framework 180 Conceptualising global health partnerships 180 Conceptualising evaluation and inequities 181 Literature review 182 The partnership paradigms in policy and practice 182 Pragmatic-instrumental literature 183 The critical-ideological literature 183 The critical-governmentality literature 183 The critical-constructivist partnership literature 184 Soft power mechanisms in global health partnership governance systems 184 Policy agenda-setting and institutional control 184 Normpreneurship and diffusion in global health partnerships 185 Rhetoric and discourse control 185 Framing of monitoring and evaluation issues in policy and practice in LMICs 186 Monitoring and evaluation of conceptual boundaries 186 Performativity and monitoring and evaluation artefacts 187 Theoretical discussion 188 Evaluative inequalities in policy practices: The unintended effects of GFATM’s support to the Ministry’s monitoring and evaluation system in Zimbabwe 189 Contents xiii GHPs-supported monitoring and evaluation facilitating the digital exclusion 189 Normalisation of parallel monitoring and evaluation systems 190 Digital disruptions in monitoring and evaluation 191 Contested nature of GHP-supported monitoring and evaluation 193 Patron-clientelism 193 GHPs and monitoring and evaluation brain drain in the health sector 195 Promoting mute and perverse practices 196 ‘Othering’ and conceptual boundaries 197 Conclusion 198 Chapter 10: Why emphasis on randomised controlled trials is a flawed approach to evaluation for a more equitable society 199 Seán M Muller Introduction 199 Background: From causal inference to epistemic and practical harms 201 The supposed ‘credibility revolution’ in evaluation 201 Critical perspectives and epistemic harms 202 The value-ladenness of randomised evaluations 204 Educational interventions: Value for money and generalisability 204 Unacknowledged subjectivity and bias 205 Dubious epistemic hierarchies 207 Indigenous and local knowledge 209 Ethical concerns 210 Addressing potential objections 212 Conclusion 213 Chapter 11: Transformative Equity: Promoting systemic change through a new evaluation criterion 217 Jennifer Norins, Desiree Jason, Ian Goldman, Kgaugelo Moshia-Molebatsi, Sinenhlanhla Tsekiso, Thandolwethu Lukuko & Zulaikha Brey Introduction 218 Understanding inequity in South Africa 220 Development of the evaluation criterion on Transformative Equity 222 Transformative Equity criterion 225 Dimension 1: Population/populace: Who? 225 Dimension 2: Cause and effect: How? 226 Contents xiv Dimension 3: Space: Where? 226 Dimension 4: Content and intention: What? 227 Dimension 5: Time: When? 227 Equity principles 228 Integrating the equity dimensions and principles into the evaluation process 232 Determining the purpose and scope of the evaluation 232 Evaluation questions 232 Stakeholder identification and engagement process 234 Bringing equity into the post-evaluation processes 235 The pilot process: Mainstreaming the criterion into practice 236 Conclusion 239 Chapter 12: Evaluation in service of equity? A synthesis of the conceptualisation of inequality and evaluation approaches to address inequality 241 Tebogo Fish, Samukelisiwe Mkhize & Steven Masvaure Introduction 242 Evaluators’ conceptualisation of inequality 242 Proposed approaches to address inequality 245 Reflection on evaluation approaches 247 Unlocking the value of evaluation in addressing inequality 249 Conclusion 251 References 253 Index 281 xv Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes List of abbreviations and acronyms ACMERET Solutions Academic, Coaching, Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Education and Training Solutions ADHD attention deficit hyperactivity disorder AfrEA African Evaluation Association AfrED African Evaluation Database AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syndrome APNODE African Parliamentarians’ Network on Development Evaluation ART antiretroviral therapy ARV antiretroviral ASP additional safeguard policy BBBEE Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment BWI Bretton Woods Institutions CBT cognitive behaviour therapy CDA critical discourse analysis CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers CHEWs community health extension workers CHOs community health officers CIP Crop Intensification Programme CIARAN Centre for International Research and Advisory Networks CISDA Changes in Integration for Social Decisions in Aging CLEAR-AA Centre for Learning on Evaluations and Results, Anglophone Africa CLEAR-FA Centre for Learning on Evaluations and Results, Francophone Africa CMD congenital muscular dystrophy COFEM Coalition of Feminists for Social Change COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019 Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xvi CPHCs comprehensive primary health care centres CREST Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology CSA climate-smart agriculture CSC collaborative stepped care CSOs civil society organisations DFID Department for International Development DPME Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo DSD Department of Social Development DST Department of Science and Technology DSI Department of Science and Innovation EBA ecosystems-based approach ECA educational credential assessment ECD evaluation capacity development EPMS electronic patient monitoring system ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAP Focus Area Programme FDI foreign direct investment FSIN Food Security Information Network FTLRP Fast-Track Land Reform Programme GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GBV gender-based violence GFATM Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria GHP global health partnership GoZ Government of Zimbabwe GR Green Revolution HIV human immunodeficiency virus HMIS health management information systems ICC intra-cluster correlation IDEAS International Development Evaluation Association IFIs international financial institutions IKSs indigenous knowledge systems IMAGE Integrated Mapping and Geographic Encoding System IMF International Monetary Fund IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IPV intimate partner violence Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xvii IT information technology ITU International Telecommunication Union J-PAL Jameel Poverty Action Lab LCDAs local council development areas LEP Look East Policy LHW local health care worker LHWs local health care workers LMIC low- or middle-income country M&E monitoring and evaluation MAE Made in Africa Evaluation MDGs Millenium Development Goals MHCP Mental Health Care Plan mhGAP mental health Gap Action Programme NDA National Development Agency NDP National Development Plan NEP National Evaluation Plan NEPF National Evaluation Policy Framework NES National Evaluation System NGOs non-governmental organisations NPG new public governance NRF National Research Foundation PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PHC primary health care PhD Doctor of Philosophy PICTA Partnership for Information and Communication Technology for Africa PLA Participatory Learning for Action PRs principal recipients PRIME Programme for Improving Mental Health Care PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder OCSC ordinary collaborative stepped care OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD–DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – Development Assistance Committee OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights OPHID Organization for Public Health, Interventions and Development Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xviii OXFAM Oxford Committee for Famine Relief QoL quality of life RBM results-based management RCT randomised control trial RDP Reconstruction and Development Plan SADC Southern African Development Community SAMEA South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association SANGONet Southern African NGO Network SAPs structural adjustment programmes SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SEAT Social Equity Assessment Tool SMD severe mental disorders SPHC selected primary health care SWAPs sector-wide approaches TB tuberculosis ToR terms of reference TWG technical working group UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UPR Universal Periodic Review US United States USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development VAW violence against women VOPE Voluntary Organizations for Professional Evaluations WACIE West Africa Capacity-building and Impact Evaluation WHO World Health Organization WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WTO World Trade Organization ZANU–PF Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xix List of figures Figure 1.1: Levels of social inequalities. 10 Figure 6.1: Impact of colonialism on food security. 107 Figure 6.2: Model of inquiry – combining agenda and framing analysis. 114 Figure 8.1: The Programme for Improving Mental Health Care Cross-Country Summary ToC. 165 Figure 8.2: Theory of change map for the Friendship Bench project intervention. 170 List of tables Table 3.1: Monitoring and Evaluation qualifications in selected African higher education and training institutions. 60 Table 11.1: Applying equity principles as a commissioner or an evaluator. 231 Table 11.2: Suggested primary and detailed evaluation questions by type, accounting for equity. 233 xxi Notes on contributors Amy Murgatroyd Centre for Sustainability Transitions, Faculty of Economics and Management, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Email: amy.t.murgatroyd@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4718-9934 Amy Murgatroyd recently graduated with a Master of Philosophy degree (MPhil) in Sustainable Development, where her research focus was on understanding the role of the evaluator in implementing a Made in Africa Evaluation approach. Murgatroyd has seven years of experience in programme management and is the co-founder of KnowBetter Exchange, a specialised consultancy that provides transformative evaluation and capacity-building services. Ayabulela Dlakavu Twende Mbele, Faculty of Law, Commerce and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: ayabulela.dlakavu@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9740-6298 Ayabulela Dlakavu is the programme manager of Twende Mbele, a multilateral peer-learning initiative between South Africa, Benin, Uganda, Kenya, Niger and Ghana, hosted by the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Ayabulela is also a lecturer, researcher and analyst of public policy, foreign policy, international organisations, global and regional peace and security, political economy and international development. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree (PhD) in Political Science. Candice Morkel Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: candice.morkel@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-9526 Candice Morkel is a global leader in the evaluation sector and the director of the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA). Morkel has 26 years of experience in government, academia and the non-profit sector, specialising in public sector governance and monitoring and evaluation. She leads CLEAR-AA’s work in building national evaluation systems through institution building and capacity development. Morkel holds a PhD in Public Administration. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4718-9934 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9740-6298 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-9526 mailto:amy.t.murgatroyd@gmail.com mailto:ayabulela.dlakavu@wits.ac.za maito:candice.morkel@wits.ac.za Notes on contributors xxii Cecile Feronta,b aGraduate School of Business, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa bCentre for Sustainability Transitions, Faculty of Economics and Management, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Email: cecile.feront@uct.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2778-076X Cecile Feront is a senior lecturer at the University of Cape Town (UCT) Graduate School of Business and a research fellow at Stellenbosch University’s Centre for Sustainability Transitions (CST). Feront researches and teaches how individuals and organisations engage in change to promote social justice and environmental sustainability. She also explores research approaches that promote the co-creation and sharing of knowledge in service of systems change. Feront holds a PhD in Business Administration. Desiree Jason National Department of Social Development: Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Pretoria, South Africa Email: desireej@dsd.gov.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8582-7539 Desiree Jason is a senior manager at the National Department of Social Development responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes. She holds a Master’s Degree (MA) from the University of Pretoria (UP) and a postgraduate diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation from Stellenbosch University. She is a past board member of the South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA). She currently manages the implementation of a digital transformation project on linking social protection administrative data systems across government to improve services to poor and vulnerable citizens. She is extremely passionate about working on initiatives aimed at improving the lives of our most marginalised and vulnerable members of society – ‘leave nobody behind’. Ian Goldmana,b aCentre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa bNelson Mandela School of Public Management, Faculty of Management, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Email: ian.goldman@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-1118 Ian Goldman established the South African national evaluation system. He is a monitoring and evaluation advisor for the South African Presidency, Global Evaluation Initiative and CLEAR-AA. Goldman is also the president of the International Evaluation Academy (IEAc) and a professor at UCT, applying monitoring and evaluation to hasten a socially just transition to climate and ecosystems health. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2778-076X https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8582-7539 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-1118 mailto:cecile.feront@uct.ac.za maito:desireej@dsd.gov.za mailto:ian.goldman@wits.ac.za Notes on contributors xxiii Jennifer Norinsa,b aSouth African Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA), Pretoria, South Africa bMIET Africa, Durban, South Africa Email: jennorins@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0989-5131 Jennifer Norins has over fifteen years of experience in project monitoring, evaluation and research in education, youth programming and community development. She currently serves as the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning (MERL) specialist of regional programmes at MIET AFRICA, a Durban-based non-profit organisation (NPO) that works in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region on youth development and education projects. Norins was a co-lead in the equity group for the 2021 South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA) evaluation hackathon. A current SAMEA board member, Norins is the portfolio lead for monitoring and evaluation for Just Transition and facilitates the Evaluation for Just Transition Conference of the Parties (COP). She has an MA in International Affairs from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America (USA). Kguagelo Moshia-Molebatsi National Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation: Evaluation, Evidence and Knowledge Systems, Republic of South Africa Government, Pretoria, South Africa Email: Kgaugelo@dpme.gov.za ORCID: http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0247-5627 Kgaugelo Moshia-Molebatsi is a senior evaluation specialist in the Republic of South Africa (RSA) National Department of Planning, Monitoring and  Evaluation (DPME) with extensive experience in coordination and management of research and evaluation in reproductive health, youth and gender. Over the past five years, Moshia-Molebatsi has played a key role in supporting the national departments and provincial offices of the premier in implementing the National Evaluation Plan (NEP). Matodzi Amisi Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Law, Commerce and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: michellematodzi@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5526-5837 Matodzi Amisi has extensive experience as a researcher and evaluator in government and public administration in South Africa. Amisi is a research associate at the CLEAR-AA, Wits, South Africa. She is also a senior research consultant in the Justice and Violence Prevention Programme at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Pretoria. From 2005 to 2013, Amisi worked in the Commission on Gender Equality and the Departments of https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0989-5131 http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0247-5627 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5526-5837 mailto:jennorins@gmail.com maito:Kgaugelo@dpme.gov.za maito:michellematodzi@gmail.com Notes on contributors xxiv Human Settlements and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. She was part of the team that established the NEP in South Africa, working with the South African Department of Social Development and Department of Human Settlements. Penny Parenzee Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Email: penny.parenzee@uct.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7790-5812 Penny Parenzee is the senior programme manager at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance at UCT. She has a background in law and social policy and has been involved in monitoring the implementation of various pieces of legislation and examining policy processes related to land, violence against females and sexual and reproductive health and rights in RSA, SADC and East Africa. Parenzee has managed European Union (EU) funded programmes, conducted research, led monitoring and evaluation initiatives, undertaken budget monitoring and expenditure tracking, as well as provided technical support to institutions seeking to strengthen their research and training efforts. Parenzee is a recipient of the prestigious Fulbright Scholarship. Over a two-year period, she completed two MA programmes at Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA. She holds an MA in Law and Social Policy and in Clinical Social Work. Parenzee was a PhD candidate at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance at the time of contributing to this book. Samukelisiwe Mkhize Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: samukelisiwe.mkhize@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6381-662X Samukelisiwe Mkhize is a researcher at the CLEAR-AA, Wits, South Africa. She holds an MA in Policy and Development Studies from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). Mkhize has previous work experience in climate adaptation and mitigation in smallholder systems as well as supporting the development of climate-smart agriculture decision support systems. Her current research interests are around the conceptualisation of climate justice in complex socio-ecological systems and public policy responses to climate adaptation and mitigation in Africa. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7790-5812 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6381-662X mailto:penny.parenzee@uct.ac.za mailto:samukelisiwe.mkhize@wits.ac.za Notes on contributors xxv Seán M Muller Institute for Advanced Study, Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: seanm@uj.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-0609 Seán M Muller is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Johannesburg, South Africa. An economist by training with higher education training and degrees from UCT and the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (UK), his work nevertheless ranges widely from public policy to philosophy of science. Since 2010, Muller has developed an original, multifaceted critique of how randomised trials are used and promoted in economics and social science for policy purposes. Sinenhlanhla Tsekiso Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: sinenhlanhla.tsekiso@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1178-4973 Sinenhlanhla Tsekiso has over ten years of experience in strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems in the public sector. She worked in different sectors and spheres of government in South Africa before joining CLEAR-AA. Tsekiso is currently the programme manager for evaluation systems at CLEAR-AA and is tasked with strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems within English-speaking countries. Steven Masvaure Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: smasvaure@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4172-6206 Steven Masvaure is a senior evaluation technical specialist at CLEAR-AA, Wits, South Africa. He holds a PhD in Development Studies. Masvaure possesses more than fifteen years of working experience as a researcher and evaluator in the development sector across several African countries. Sybert Mutereko Department of Public Governance, School of Management, IT and Governance University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Email: muterekos@ukzn.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7490-5943 Sybert Mutereko is a professor of Public Governance and the academic leader of Public Governance at the School of Management, IT and Governance. Mutereko acted as the dean and head of the School of Management, IT and Governance. Mutereko holds a PhD in Policy and Development from the UKZN. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-0609 maito:seanm@uj.ac.za maito:sinenhlanhla.tsekiso@wits.ac.za mailto:smasvaure@gmail.com mailto:muterekos@ukzn.ac.za https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1178-4973 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4172-6206 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7490-5943 Notes on contributors xxvi Takunda J Chirau Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: tkchirau@icloud.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8506-7359 Takunda J Chirau is the Deputy Director at CLEAR-AA and leads the Evaluation Systems Programme at the Centre. Takunda has a PhD in Sociology from Rhodes University. Takunda has been working in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) discipline and has practised for over twelve years now. Taku has conducted several National Evaluation Capacity Development (NECD) activities. Some of these activities have been through respective UNICEF country office and East and Southern Africa Regional Office. His contributions in the M&E discipline and profession are evidenced in countries of Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Lesotho, Namibia, Botswana, Tanzania, Liberia and Zimbabwe, to mention a few. He is a board member of SAMEA. Tebogo Fish Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: Tebogo.fish1@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-8135 Tebogo Fish is a researcher at CLEAR-AA, hosted by the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management (CLM) at the University of the Witwatersrand. She holds an MA in Research Psychology and has been working in the M&E field for seven years. Her research interests include social issues in Africa, such as poverty, unemployment, inequality, education and skills development, as well as indigenous and equitable evaluation for transformative change in Africa. Thandolwethu Lukuko Climate Action Network South Africa (SACAN), Pretoria, South Africa Email: coordinator@sacan.africa ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3170-5298 Thandolwethu Lukuko is currently the coordinator of the South African Climate Action Network (SACAN), a network of fourteen NGOs working to address the challenge of climate change and climate action. He is also a director of Community Engagement at Mansa Advisory, a climate change and energy advisory services business. He has a passion for problem-solving, mailto:tkchirau@icloud.com mailto:Tebogo.fish1@gmail.com mailto:coordinator@sacan.africa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8506-7359 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-8135 https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3170-5298 Notes on contributors xxvii especially as a means to address the socio-economic challenges faced by marginalised and disadvantaged groups. After completing his qualification in entrepreneurship, Thando pursued his interest in the business environment and established businesses in the mining, logistics and textiles industries. More recently, his work has been focused on working in low-income communities and developing strategies for co-creating and growing rural and peri-urban resilience. Umali Saidi Research and Innovation Division, Midlands State University, Gweru, Zimbabwe Email: saidiu@thedyke.msu.ac.zw ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-6789 Umali Saidi is the Postgraduate Studies Manager (Research and Innovation Division), a senior lecturer and the Editor-in-Chief of The Dyke (the institutional academic journal) at Midlands State University. He is a staunch and avid researcher with interests in knowledge management and indigenous knowledge systems, especially linked to monitoring and evaluation. His current research interests are around epistemes and how indigenous knowledge-based evaluation systems in Africa can support changes in governance for sustainable development on the continent. Zacharia Grand Department of Public Governance, School of Management, IT and Governance, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Email: zachariagrand@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0412-4328 Zacharia Grand is a public governance researcher at the School of Management, IT and Governance, University of KwaZulu-Natal, and a Public Policy lecturer at the College of Business, Peace Leadership and Governance, Africa University, Zimbabwe. He is also a senior public health and global development professional with a private consulting company Academic, Coaching, Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Education and Training (ACMERET) Solutions and has over seventeen years of experience as a development evaluation and capacity-building professional for government departments and non-governmental organisations in East, Central and Southern Africa. He has also worked for and with international organisations, including UN agencies and the government of Zimbabwe. His current research interests are around global health partnerships, partnerships for climate change and shared services in local authorities in South Africa. mailto:saidiu@thedyke.msu.ac.zw mailto:zachariagrand@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-6789 https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0412-4328 Notes on contributors xxviii Zulaikha Brey DNA Economics (Pty) Ltd, Pretoria, South Africa Email: zulaikha.brey@dnaeconomics.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0203-9410 Zulaikha Brey is a development economist at DNA Economics. She has a focus on driving robust programme design, efficient implementation and the measurement of performance – for government, donors, corporates and NPOs. Having completed more than 80 M&E and research studies to date, she possesses a diverse skillset of methodologies, applying such in key focus areas of trade, finance, health, education, entrepreneurship, employment and socio-economic development. maito:zulaikha.brey@dnaeconomics.com https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0203-9410 xxix Acknowledgement This work would not have been possible without the financial support from Ford Foundation. xxxi How to cite: Morkel, C 2023, ‘Preface’, in S Masvaure, TJ Chirau, T Fish & C Morkel (eds.), Equitable Evaluation: Voices from the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 1, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. xxxi–xxxii. https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459.0p Preface Candice Morkel Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Addressing the challenge of inequality has been the ‘holy grail’ of global development programmes, and scholars and practitioners across various fields, such as economics, development, sociology and politics, have studied and ruminated on the solution to the pernicious challenge for decades. Almost 20 years later, the persistent resonance of the title of the book, When will we ever learn, by the Centre for Global Development (2006), is a stark reminder that though there has been a rapid increase in the availability of data on inequality, the evidence of ‘what works’, ‘what does not work’, ‘for whom’ and ‘under what conditions’ is much more complex. Despite the volumes of evidence that provide seemingly straightforward answers around, for example, the impact of cash transfer programmes, agricultural development initiatives or measures to improve access to health and education to underserved groups, the world continues to battle the protracted challenge of global inequalities. The World Inequality Report (2022)1 states that, in terms of income inequality: […] in every large region of the world with the exception of Europe, the share of the bottom 50% in total earnings is less than 15% (less than ten in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and MENA region) while the share of the richest 10% is over 40% and in many of the regions, closer to 60%. (n.p.) Wealth inequality reveals similarly startling figures. The impact of the climate crisis has exacerbated the challenge, with the World Inequality Database (2023)2 conveying the unequal distribution of climate impacts across the world and low- and middle-income countries suffering much more than their wealthier counterparts. This book, therefore, remains a necessary contribution to the continued advocacy and push needed to address the last frontier of colonialism and underdevelopment, and the need for global action across all sectors, by all actors, to dismantle the 1. See https://wir2022.wid.world/download/. 2. See https://wid.world/news-article/climate-inequality-report-2023-fair-taxes-for-a-sustainable-future-in-the- global-south/. https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459.0p https://wir2022.wid.world/download/ https://wid.world/news-article/climate-inequality-report-2023-fair-taxes-for-a-sustainable-future-in-theglobal-south/ Preface xxxii harmful systems, practices and institutions that create the oppressive and protracted conditions for inequality to persist. While the subject of this book is not new, the focus of the collection – the link between evaluation and inequality – to a certain extent is, and has been, left trailing behind research and reflections on inequality in development. Several authors from the Global South have therefore come together to examine the relationship between equity (fair distribution of wealth and resources), systemic inequality (the institutionalised, unfair treatment of people based on attributes such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, class and social status) and evaluation. It forms part of the growing discourse around transforming evaluation (which has also received a more candid focus on decolonising and indigenising evaluation as key factors that are fundamental to the need to transform in recent years). Over the last decade or so, evaluators have slowly begun addressing the issue of transforming evaluation and considering more than simply the success or failure of individual programmes on social change. This book presents a contribution to this and is a balanced collection that addresses the systemic nature of inequity and inequality, as well as the microcosm of evaluation practice and its role in supporting equitable development. For example, Chapters 1 and 3 unpack the global hegemony of the so-called Global North vis-à-vis the Global South and the historical power asymmetries that have their roots in colonialism and underdevelopment as introductions to understanding inequality and its manifestations. Chapter 4 challenges us to look more closely at the institutions that are the ‘guardians’ of development and the need to address unchecked hegemonic power in some cases. Chapter 2 considers what an authentic practice and living the principles of ‘Made in Africa Evaluation’ (MAE) would look like, and Chapter 7, for example, examines what works in addressing the issue of gender-based violence by learning from a South African evaluation of interventions. The key question that this book raises for all of us is: how can our practice and study of evaluation shift the needle and achieve equity and equality for all? Our hope is in the persevering work of champions in government, parliaments, the private sector, civil society, international development organisations, academic institutions, research institutes, think tanks and numerous community-based organisations to do the work that is needed to tear down the oppressive systems and practices that generate inequality and to scale up the actions that are needed to achieve the goal of inclusive growth and development. For evaluators, the labour is to produce and work tirelessly towards the effective use of the evidence needed to do so. This book, therefore, stands as a contribution to the active and persistent work of the pursuit of social justice and the role of evaluation as a catalyst. 1 How to cite: Masvaure, S, Chirau, TJ, Fish, T & Morkel, C 2023, ‘Overview of the chapters’, in S Masvaure, TJ Chirau, T Fish & C Morkel (eds.), Equitable Evaluation: Voices from the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 1, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459.00 The World Health Organization (WHO) (2023, n.p.) defines equity as ‘the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically’. The goal of equity is to eliminate the unfair and avoidable circumstances that deprive people of their rights. Therefore, inequities generally arise when certain population groups are unfairly deprived of basic resources that are made available to other groups. A disparity is ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’ when it is the result of the social context rather than biological factors. Equitable evaluation contends that conducting evaluation practices with an equity approach is more powerful, as evaluation is used as a tool for advancing equity. It emphasises that context, culture, history Overview of the chapters Steven Masvaure Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Takunda J Chirau Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Tebogo Fish Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Candice Morkel Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Introduction https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459.00 Overview of the chapters 2 and beliefs shape the nature of evaluations, specifically in the diverse and often complex African reality. Furthermore, equitable evaluation can render power to the powerless, offer a voice to the silenced and give presence to those treated as invisible. Evidence from various sources shows that inequality is prevalent in the African continent, hence the need to focus on evaluative solutions that address the structural issues that contribute to the different forms of inequality, such as economic, political and social inequality. Despite a plethora of development interventions in the African continent, a large proportion of the population on the continent still lacks access to basic goods and services for survival. The effectiveness of developmental programmes in sub-Saharan Africa has been elusive, to the extent that minimal inroads have been made in addressing key challenges such as poverty, inequality and, currently, the effects of climate change. The Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results in Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), supported by Ford Foundation, commissioned two volumes on equitable evaluation in the Global South. The two volumes seek to stimulate conversations among development evaluators, commissioners of evaluations and development programme decision-makers about the role of evaluation in addressing inequality and fostering an equitable society in Africa. The book chapters explore the following: (1) Take stock of what we know about inequality – what is inequality in the African context, and how does it affect the lives of the citizens of African countries? (2) What does equitable evaluation mean? In what way can the concept of equitable evaluation be adopted in evaluation practice? (3) What lessons can be learnt from evaluations of interventions that address inequality at various (sectoral, programmatic and project) levels? (4) What epistemological transformation in evaluation practice is needed to achieve an equitable society? (5) How have issues of inequality manifested within evaluation practice through organisations, institutions and international development? In Chapter 1, Masvaure, Fish, Chirau, Morkel and Mkhize introduce the key terms that are key to understanding inequality. The chapter critically discusses inequality, inequity, equity, equality and the meaning of equitable evaluation. The chapter links inequality to the current development challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the chapter examines the root causes of inequality in the Global South through situating inequality in the colonial history of the Global South. It examines how colonial history shaped the current levels of inequality in the Global South. The chapter concludes by highlighting the role evaluation plays in addressing inequality. In Chapter 2, Murgatroyd and Feront explore how a Made in Africa Evaluation (MAE) approach can enhance positive impacts for all stakeholders. Introduction 3 They argue that evaluations in Africa are typically conducted to serve the needs and interests of donors rather than local beneficiaries. This results in an extractive process whereby programme participants become the objects of data instead of being empowered to be active contributors in data- collection and analysis processes. The chapter is an application of the MAE approach and explores the experiences of key stakeholders in two youth development programmes operated by the African Foundation in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The key findings from the chapter are that participants’ individual expectations of the development programme shape their experience of success or failure; that evaluations need to consider the impact on not only the individual but also their family, community and the environment; and that there is a willingness among participants to select the best elements of both a Western and Zulu culture to create an evaluation framework that best reflects their lived experiences. Further, they found that there is a growing number of donors who, if guided and supported through the process, are willing to adapt their current evaluation frameworks to better suit the African context. In Chapter 3, Dlakavu argues that evaluation theory (transmitted through African institutions) and practice are dominated by Western neoliberal conceptualisations of what constitutes ‘development’ and how to measure it. Such Western monopolisation of evaluation knowledge and practice is a reinforcement of the Global North’s neo-colonial dominance in Africa ideologically (inclusive of ideas of development), politically and economically. This chapter examines the dominance of Global North development theory and practice within African university curricula, African governments and non-state developmental stakeholders. He concludes this chapter by providing recommendations on how to dismantle the Global North’s monopoly of development and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) discourse and practice. In Chapter 4, Chirau and Umali argue that Marxist analysis of class offers a better understanding of how inequality emerged and sustained itself even to contemporary times. The class struggle is replicated by international institutions, albeit in new forms. Institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and its agents, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are no exception in perpetuating inequalities, particularly in the Global South. This is seen in how the Global North relates to the Global South in multilateral organisations. Chirau and Umali expose the hidden sources of inequality manifesting in the evaluation practice and space. The chapter hypothesises that the main nucleus of inequity and inequalities existing in M&E practices are traced to the operations as well as attitudes of the international institutions towards the Global South because these provide advice and recommend interventions. Their chapter concludes that there is no doubt that international organisations play an important Overview of the chapters 4 role in eliminating inequities and inequalities, but they must be aware of their impact to prevent unintentionally reinforcing inequalities and inequities. The chapter ends by providing recommendations that include the role of MAE and indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs) in reducing the epistemological inequality between the Global North and Global South. In Chapter 5, Masvaure demonstrates how the use of the intersectional approach in evaluation contributes to a better understanding of the climate injustice problem. Furthermore, the chapter explores how the various forms of inequalities influence climate change adaptation decision-making. The chapter adopts autoethnography and tells a compelling story of how one individual is affected by different types of inequities. The chapter deals in detail with the systematic nature of inequality and how individuals, communities and countries are affected by multi-dimensions of inequality. Masvaure emphasised the need for a holistic approach to addressing inequities in development if sustainable and impactful development is to be achieved. The chapter concludes by calling evaluators to action by employing appropriate approaches that address these multi-dimensions of inequalities. In Chapter 6, Mkhize argues that evaluators’ interrogation of the persistent colonial and neo-colonial agenda inherent in the framing of climate-smart agriculture programming. Her chapter reveals how CSA programming pursues distributive justice with limited forms of procedural, restorative and intergenerational justice, which remains largely unquestioned in evaluation. She illustrates how critical interrogation of confining framings and confronting injustices of climate change narratives and ideologies in development and evaluation can provide evidence for rethinking how CSA programming and evaluation are conducted in Africa. Her chapter also provides limitations and opportunities for evaluators seeking to centre equity in evaluative practice. The chapter highlights various evaluation approaches and methodologies that evaluators can employ to challenge politics, power and ideology. It concludes by cautioning against the view that evaluation alone can bring equity and justice in the highly political and contested CSA discourses in Africa. In Chapter 7, Amisi and Parenzee explore the applicability and usefulness of gender inequality as the focus of interventions to prevent GBV in South Africa with its history of colonial and racial subjugation. The chapter synthesised a sample of intervention programme evaluations in a 2019 Evidence Map carried out by CLEAR-AA, the Institute for Security Studies and the Africa Centre of Evidence using the ‘What is the problem represented to be (WPR)’ analytical framework. The chapter highlights that evaluators focus on programmes as the unit of analysis in an evaluation, and this leads to a narrow definition of gender inequality. Introduction 5 Furthermore, evaluators are often guided by what the programme identified as a problem and what they intended to do to address the problem. They concluded by saying that it is imperative that we open up debates about how we understand gender inequality and its relationship to the forms of violence that manifest in public and private spaces. These debates present an opportunity to forge new analytical perspectives that reflect the lived experiences of those who occupy a given context. In Chapter 8, Fish argues that evaluation is needed to facilitate the prioritisation of mental health equity in African countries. Fish stresses that mental health care is low on the public health agenda, as demonstrated by the scarcity of mental health care specialists, the existence of only a few outpatient and inpatient health care facilities or psychiatric wards in general hospitals with sufficient beds for mentally ill patients. One of the primary interventions in addressing this treatment gap in African countries is task- sharing (i.e. where non-specialist health professionals and lay workers receive training and supervision to screen for or diagnose mental illness and to provide treatment and monitor affected people). This chapter shows that the evaluations conducted in Africa available on the African Evaluation Database (AfrED) suggest that there are two different ways in which task- sharing interventions have been evaluated, using RCTs and a theory-based evaluation approach, both of which were problematic. The exclusionary criteria used for the RCTs meant that the success or failure of the interventions was measured using data from populations which were easier to study, and the effect on the most marginalised people, including the elderly and children from rural areas and those with severe mental illness, was ignored. The theory-based approach, on the other hand, did not use change theories from psychiatric or psychological fields to support the explanation of how change occurs. She concludes the chapter by stating that equity-focused evaluations should go beyond showing results only from the medical perspective but need to also consider the influence of social contexts on the problems themselves and the effectiveness of treatment. In Chapter 9, Grand and Mutereko demonstrate how critical discourse analysis presents theoretical and methodological opportunities to identify inequalities in evaluations and their implications for policy and practice in Zimbabwe. The chapter indicates both negative and unintended impacts, including discourses promoting the exclusion of local voices from key evaluation findings. Excessive reliance on global health partnerships’ financial and technical support has excluded local M&E knowledge systems as quantitative techniques, policies, indicators and targets define knowledge. The M&E partnership discourse also normalises the unequal power relations in which the government is presumed the weaker partner – an arrangement exploited, to their own advantage, by both parties. Consequently, the chapter Overview of the chapters 6 argues that there is a need for deliberate scientific and pragmatic discussions that problematise evaluation approaches supported through global health partnerships, such as results- and evidence-based evaluations explicitly focusing on its unintended effects. In Chapter 10, Muller tackles the well-known concerns of randomised control trials (RCTs). He argues that the manner in which RCTs are being used could hinder social and economic development rather than advance it. The chapter focuses, in particular, on three RCT concerns. He argues that while RCTs are presented as ‘scientific’ and essentially value-free, they are heavily influenced by the worldview of those who decide on the design and implementation of the interventions and how the intervention is to be evaluated. Furthermore, he raised the concern that the special epistemic status given to RCTs contains strong (explicit or implicit) assumptions about what kind of knowledge matters and, therefore, whose knowledge in society ought to be given greater weight and attention. In addition, he raises the concern that the manner in which the RCT approach has been promoted and popularised reflects the exploitation of deep inequities – particularly between the Global North and Global South – in monetary, institutional and intellectual resources – in order to secure influence over public policy decisions. The direct negative effect of these issues is to create or compound epistemic inequities. In Chapter 11, the authors focus on the development of a new, Made in Africa, Transformative Equity evaluation criterion. The authors argue that, given the importance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s – Development Assistance Committee (OECD–DAC) criteria in guiding the evaluation process, an explicit criterion is needed to promote greater equity in and through evaluations. The authors discuss the process of developing the evaluation criterion. The pilot process of integrating the criterion into the terms of reference and implementation process of selected government agencies is included. Further, the chapter outlines lessons learned in this process and reflections on how monitoring and evaluation approaches can be extensively transformed to promote Transformative Equity in society. In Chapter 12, Fish, Mkhize and Masvaure conclude by highlighting the key points from the book. 7 How to cite: Masvaure, S, Fish, T, Mkhize, S, Chirau, TJ & Morkel, C 2023, ‘Inequality through the evaluation lens’, in S Masvaure, TJ Chirau, T Fish & C Morkel (eds.), Equitable Evaluation: Voices from the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 1, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. 7–22. https://doi.org/10.4102/ aosis.2023.BK459.01 Introduction Today’s world is littered with various forms of inequalities. Communities in the Global South must confront these inequalities daily, and they have become a part of their lives. Discrimination and deprivation caused by inequalities have brought social and economic violence to the Global South. There have been Inequality through the evaluation lens Steven Masvaure Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Tebogo Fish Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Samukelisiwe Mkhize Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Takunda J Chirau Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Candice Morkel Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Chapter 1 https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459.01 Inequality through the evaluation lens 8 several approaches to addressing inequalities, but they yielded minimal results. What is inconspicuous are the solutions to address these inequalities – the solutions have been far and short. In some quarters, there is resignation that inequalities are a permanent feature of life, and communities have accepted that they have limited powers to change their situation. Inequalities are driven by several factors, including gender, age, origin, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, class, culture and religion. In addition, there are inequalities between countries, as well as Global North and Global South power asymmetries. These inequalities have shaped the approach to international development and its accompanying evaluation practices. The World Health Organization (WHO) (2023) defines equity as ‘the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically’. Equity strives to eradicate unjust and preventable situations that strip individuals of their rights. Consequently, inequalities typically emerge when specific demographic groups are unjustly denied access to fundamental resources that are accessible to other groups. A disparity is considered ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’ when it arises from societal conditions rather than biological factors (Singh, Chandurkar & Dutt 2017, p. 99). Equitable evaluation contends that conducting evaluation practices with an equity approach is more powerful, as evaluation is used to advance equity. It emphasises that the influence of context, culture, history and beliefs shapes the character of assessments, particularly within the multifaceted African context. Moreover, equitable evaluation has the potential to empower the marginalised, amplify the voices of the silenced and bring visibility to those who have been rendered invisible (Krenn 2021, p. i). Evidence from the literature shows that inequality is prevalent in the African continent, hence the need to focus on evaluative solutions that address the structural and socio-economic issues that contribute to the different forms of inequality such as economic, political and social inequality. Despite a plethora of development interventions on the African continent, a large proportion of the population still lacks access to basic goods and services for survival. The effectiveness of developmental programmes in sub-Saharan Africa has been elusive, to the extent that minimal inroads have been made in addressing key challenges such as poverty, inequality and the effects of climate change. One is forced to ask the question: Why is it that many people in Africa are without clean water? Why is it that the majority are without food, medicine, education or a political voice? Why is it that the majority suffer from human rights abuses and poverty? The realities cut far deeper than just being poor. This book seeks to stimulate conversations among development evaluators, commissioners of evaluations and development programme Chapter 1 9 decision-makers about the role of evaluation in addressing inequality and fostering an equitable society in Africa. The book chapters explore the following: (1) Take stock of what we know about inequality – what is inequality in the African context and how does it affect the lives of the citizens of African countries? (2) What does equitable evaluation mean? In what way can the concept of equitable evaluation be adopted in evaluation practice? (3) What lessons can be learnt from evaluations of interventions that address inequality at various (sectoral, programmatic, project) levels? (4) What epistemological transformation in evaluation practice is needed to achieve an equitable society? (5) How have issues of inequality manifested within evaluation practice through organisations, institutions and international development? This chapter will lay the groundwork for the rest of the book, defining what inequality is and the role that evaluation can play in addressing inequality. What is inequality/inequity? While inequity and inequality are often used interchangeably, they are in fact distinguishable. Inequity is regarded as a form of inequality, as it involves the unequal distribution of resources. In this case, the unequal distribution of resources is based on an unjust power imbalance, often because of injustices against historically excluded or marginalised groups of people (Hasty, Lewis & Snipes 2023). Inequities generally emerge when specific population groups are unfairly deprived of basic resources that are available to other groups (Stewart 2013). Social inequalities lead to inequity when the groups in charge of distribution allocate resources in ways that further oppress marginalised groups. Social inequalities are inequalities resulting from people’s backgrounds and the way in which opportunities were afforded or limited because of systems of capitalism, colonialism, racism, sexism, classism and other forms of oppression (Hasty et al. 2023). Theorists have identified four levels of social inequalities as depicted in Figure 1.1. Interpersonal inequalities are power imbalances that originate from personal biases, occur daily and demonstrate and naturalise inequalities that exist at institutional and systemic levels. Income inequality is an example of this. Furthermore, there are institutional inequalities that arise from the implicitly or explicitly biased policies and practices of the organisations in society which perpetuate oppression, including educational institutions, governments and companies. This kind of inequality is often imperceptible and viewed as status quo. Structural inequalities are the third type of social inequality, and they are based on the accumulated Inequality through the evaluation lens 10 effects of institutional decisions across societies and history, making them pervasive, global and particularly difficult to change. Structural inequalities can reinforce individual biases. Lastly, there are systemic inequalities that are the convergence of interpersonal, institutional and structural inequalities. Systemic inequalities are often depicted by ‘isms’, such as racism, classism and sexism (Hasty et al. 2023). Figure 1.1 shows that while social inequalities may often be viewed as different phenomena, they are in fact interconnected and exist in many different interactions between people and institutions. There are also other dimensions of inequality, including economic inequality (income inequality, wealth and consumption), gender inequality, educational inequality and health inequality. Gender inequality is when a person is discriminated against because of their sex or gender, including females and people who identify as transgender and non-binary. Gender inequality often manifests as unequal treatment in the home, in relationships, at work, in communities and in society, including having limited or no opportunities to learn, to make money and to hold leadership positions, and at its worst, in gender-based violence (Oxfam 2019; Silva & Klasen 2021). Source: Hasty et al. (2023). FIGURE 1.1: Levels of social inequalities. Individual: Personal biases, implicit and learned Interpersonal: Power imbalances between people that reify social inequalities Institutional: Oppressive policies and practices Structural: Global, societal and historical levels of oppression Individual: Personal biases, implicit and learned Chapter 1 11 Gender inequity, on the other hand, refers to a lack of fairness or justice for  females in all spheres of society including the economy and labour market, education, health care, etc. It is understood that creating equity across genders requires the temporary use of special measures and treatment to compensate for historical or systemic bias, discrimination and disadvantage that result from gender stereotypes, roles, norms and differences between the sexes (Shang 2022). Similarly, health inequities are the unjust differences in the health of people from different social groups, which are linked to various forms of disadvantage, such as poverty, discrimination and lack of access to services or goods. Health inequities stem from social injustices that result in some population groups being more exposed to health risks, and becoming more vulnerable to poor health than other groups (World Health Organization [WHO] 2023). There needs to be a paradigm shift away from striving for equality, which involves giving all people the exact same resources regardless of their needs or already existing opportunities or resources and moving towards achieving equity. Equity recognises that people have different circumstances and needs, and thus, different resources and opportunities should be allocated to help these population groups thrive in order to achieve equal outcomes for all (United Way 2023). The premise of this book is that instead of promoting the allocation of equal resources to people (a one-size-fits-all approach or equality), evaluation practice can be used to determine where resources and opportunities need to be allocated most to give all citizens the same opportunity to thrive (equitable distribution or access). Equity, diversity, inclusion and inequality? While the concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion are often viewed as synonymous with one another, they are, in fact, different but interconnected. Diversity refers to the presence of any features or differences that set groups of people apart from one another within a particular area, including race, gender, socio-economic status, language, culture, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, (dis)ability, age, etc. (Tan 2019). Inclusion, on the other hand, is the intentional act or practise of involving, integrating and enabling the participation of people from different backgrounds, with different identities, in an activity, place, institution or sphere of society (Servaes, Choudhury & Parikh 2022). It is the value placed on the differences between people that leads to their inclusion. While equality focuses on the equal treatment of people despite their diversity, equity recognises that there are existing advantages and barriers in place in society that separate groups of people, creating imbalances in needs, resources and the availability of opportunities for the more marginalised groups. These imbalances and barriers within the social systems of society warrant Inequality through the evaluation lens 12 equitable solutions. Equity is the approach of providing fair access to resources, support and opportunities appropriate to the needs of certain groups of people and necessary to facilitate equal outcomes (MacEachern 2019; Servaes et al. 2022; Tan 2019). To understand the differences and similarities between inequality and inequity, it is important to acknowledge their roots in systemic and systematic oppression and power dynamics. Systematic oppression is defined as the intentional mistreatment of certain groups of people. Inequalities experienced by people from different backgrounds, with different identities, stem from oppressive and unequal social systems such as racism, sexism, classism, patriarchy, etc. Discrimination and bias (whether covert or overt), on the other hand, stem from systemic oppression, which is the way in which social, economic and political inequalities are normalised and perpetuated in institutions, government and society through laws, policies and practice. The concepts of inequality and inequity should also be understood based on how they relate to issues of power. Power means the ability to exert control, authority or influence over others. Groups of people with more power also have more agency, meaning that they have a greater capacity to act and make decisions. The agency is also heavily affected by social groupings such as race, gender and class (Hasty et al. 2023). Racism, for example, results from the intersection between power and racial prejudice. Racism is then perpetuated through interpersonal, institutional and systemic practices. Racism is when race is used to create and justify a social hierarchy and a system of power that privileges and leads to the advancement of certain groups of people at the expense of others. Racial inequality and inequity are pervasive globally because of racism, which is in fact a system based on race, which is a social construct or social categorisation that was used to create false scientific superiority and authority of certain race groups. Similarly, gender inequality and inequity stem from the intersection between gender prejudice and patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system of social inequality based on gender, where males are perceived to have power and characteristics associated with femininity are granted less value. Patriarchy is related to the history of males and contexts in which males hold more political, social and economic power and privilege. Similarly, income inequality stems from socially constructed class systems (Hasty et al. 2023). It is also important to understand the concept of intersectionality, in which these different forms of social categorisation overlap and exacerbate bias and discrimination. Intersectionality refers to the concept that combinations of social identity can have a further impact on oppression or privilege. ‘Gender inequality and racial discrimination are examples where discrimination experienced because of gender, such as discrimination against females, can be directly related, encouraged, and shaped by race or ethnicity’ (MacEachern 2019, p. 2). Chapter 1 13 What are the root causes of inequality in the Global South? The root causes of inequity in the Global South can be traced back to colonialism in the early 1800s. Slavery, genocide, land dispossession and racial capitalism were all elements of this history influenced by the interests and motives of the Global North. It also had profound impacts on culture and value systems, as well as on the way development is viewed and pursued. Colonisation was driven by the extraction, exploitation and plundering of natural resources from the Global South. Europeans pillaged and plundered the colonised communities and nations for the benefit of Global North economies, with little being left for the natives of the Global South. This period in history has resulted in the affluence and development of the Global North today. The pillaging and plunder were disguised as part of civilising the Global South; however, it was also driven by racism, human rights violations and improvisation. To a larger extent, the current development challenges in the Global South are rooted in colonial history. During colonialism, fundamental structures and systems of organisation in social, political and economic sectors, as well as the role of the state and the relationship between citizens and systems of government, were altered (Taiwo 2010). Further, colonialism disrupted indigenous ways of life, where females contributed to economic structures, whereas today, females lack status in every aspect of life. Colonial Christianity brought ideologies and belief systems that displayed females’ role in society as being reduced to second-class status and removed from the existing religious, political and economic systems (Acemoglu & Robinson 2010). In the same way, females did not share power with males, while males held second-class status in relation to European colonisers. This way of life has taken root as a consequence of African people living in colonialism, putting to nought the idea that colonisation civilised the Global South. The failure to recognise and acknowledge the factual realities of colonial history and how exploitative structures continue, how inequity is the invisible and unrecognised privilege of history, is important in order to understand how global systems and societies today continue to perpetuate inequity through international development. Colonial inequalities still exist today, however, in different forms and terminology. Global North continues to push neo-colonial policies that perpetuate the continuation of exploitative economic relations, political systems and unrecognised privileges of Global North in geopolitical relations long after the attainment of political independence in Global South countries (Andrews 2021; Frankema 2005; Nkrumah & Nkrumah 1965). Neo-colonialism manifests through the control of natural resources because of racist policy agendas and the centring of European knowledge Inequality through the evaluation lens 14 in development. The Global North is positioned as the ‘knower’ and authority on development, governing global policy agendas and priorities through the provision of aid. The perpetual nature of colonialism and neo- colonialism displaces endogenous agendas with Global North agendas sustained by colonial asymmetrical and intersubjective relations between the coloniser and colonised (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2015). The Global North maintains the power of ‘who sets the agenda?’. The power to decide what is relevant and what is not, what can and cannot be discussed and what matters and what does not (Batliwala 2002). In addition, as during the colonial period, the Global South economies are largely extractive, that is, driven by primary industries that feed raw materials to the countries in the Global North. Perpetuation of colonialism manifests itself in asymmetrical power imbalances in the global political arena, Western aid and development philosophies. Agenda-setting processes are definitively shaped by Global North donors’ policies (Bradley 2008). In addition, the Global North controls the Global South agenda-setting processes, development values and priorities. Global North state agencies and donors’ influence on Global South recipients’ agenda-setting through the funding relationship between donors and recipients, donors and states, and its impact on agenda-setting in contemporary North–South relations. Unlike other forms of power, agenda-setting operates covertly in development processes, influencing the critical inquiry into what development is (Capella 2016). As a result of asymmetrical power imbalances between North and South, agenda-setting power continues to perpetuate inequality and inequity in development agendas, for example, how problems are identified and defined in pursuit of development and the accompanying interventions. Why is it important to deal with inequity? Notably, in the early 2000s, there were policy shifts by the traditional Global North funders of development in the Global South. The policy shifts were largely informed by the poor impact of development programmes in the Global South (Pallas & Urpelainen 2013). Consequently, development in the Global South took on a new focus with an increased focus on selected topics of interest that are defined in the Global North. Within these new  topics, there was also an increased need to evaluate and measure immediate and short-term outcomes of the various funded development interventions. Although the need for evaluations of interventions was noble, it was defined by Global North values, paradigms, approaches and methodologies. The implication was that evaluation became a tool that validates and perpetuates the colonial ideas of the Global North. Chapter 1 15 Countries in the Global South inherited disempowered economic structures and high inequality levels from the colonial era and have remained high since independence (Stewart 2005). Recent growth and development patterns in many countries are increasingly defined by inequities across economic, human, social, political and intergenerational dimensions. Despite a plethora of development interventions on the African continent, a large proportion of the population lacks access to basic goods and services for survival. Development interventions in sub- Saharan Africa have been elusive, to the extent that minimal inroads have been made in addressing key challenges such as poverty, inequality and, currently, climate change (Masvaure & Motlanthe 2022). Inequity threatens sustainable development and human rights, perpetuates intergenerational poverty and limits communities and personal quality of life, dignity and self-worth. Thus, addressing and locating inequities in development is indisputable for development to make real contributions to improving well-being and combating inequities. Addressing inequity broadens and deepens development efforts’ impacts at multiple levels. It challenges the pathways and processes of development, necessitating the unbundling of asymmetrical power relationships and dynamics developed through centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Further, it encourages disadvantaged social groups, communities and states. It compels us to confront the perpetual cycle of injustice. Inequality is a manufactured reality and a conscious decision, recognising that the decision not to tackle it in the face of increasing poverty, climate impacts, health inequities, unemployment and gender disparities has adverse impacts on inducing avoidable human suffering. The danger of the current ‘silent emergence’ of inequities as an acceptable societal condition and a distinct feature of modern societies negates the historical events that have led to the rising and perpetual impacts of inequity. Instead, a critical lens should be applied to development trajectories and agendas to achieve systemic change. Acknowledging the need for change requires deep inquiry into what limits us from tackling it. It also requires locating responsibility within the broader system. Fundamentally, addressing inequality and injustice is a struggle towards undoing colonial and neo-colonial exclusion and subjugation of people and communities in the Global South. This requires not only strengthening development efforts to become appropriately designed but also responsive to denied equity and justice in all sectors of modern society. Ultimately, it necessitates centring disadvantaged groups’ lived histories and experiences at the centre of development agendas. This avoids the silent emergence of inequity and ahistorical narratives of neo-colonial development. Inequality through the evaluation lens 16 Post-colonial development and inequality Several concerted efforts are targeted at addressing the various types of inequalities in the Global South. The efforts to address inequality in the Global South are rooted in the colonial power asymmetries where the Global North holds the decision-making power on funding and prioritisation of development. This approach mirrors how colonisation took place – the mantra was to spread civilisation to uncivilised countries such as those in the Global South. The Global North was purported to be civilised and felt that they had the responsibility to spread civilisation (Moloney 2020). However, the results of the process of spreading civilisation are shrouded in brutality, deprivation and the impoverishment of the Global South. During the colonial period, the Western powers propagated a specific interpretation of their own values (civilisation values) to justify colonisation. Thought leadership for the current approaches to international development is held by the Global North. There is also unchallenged leadership of the Global North on development priorities in the Global South (Gosovic 2000). The north–south divide inequalities have not been challenged despite the increasing pressure for addressing such inequalities. The power asymmetries also define what gets funded. In the Global South, ideas, policies and intentions are spelled out, but if these ideas are not in tandem with the Global North agenda, they are starved of funding (Prashad 2014). In addition, international development divides countries according to ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’, which closely mirrors the colonial division of ‘civilised’ and the ‘uncivilised’. Addressing inequality in the Global South has mainly been centred around addressing income inequality and, to some extent, wealth inequality. Income inequality has been addressed through poverty reduction strategies (Odusola 2017). The conceptual thinking around addressing poverty is driven by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund through their Global South lending mechanisms. Some of the programmes were realised through policy instruments such as poverty reduction strategies, structural adjustment programmes, Millennium Development Goals and the current sustainable development goals (SDGs). What is important is that these policies proffered the blueprint for the Global South to progress to full economic growth, and that will result in ending poverty and inequality. Except for a few countries that charted their own way separate from the Global North’s interventions, very little has been achieved when it comes to moving countries from being regarded as underdeveloped to developed. The international economic order is roughly still the same and exudes the global income patterns that were established in the early 19th century (Freistein & Mahlert 2016). Chapter 1 17 Redistributive policies have also been promoted in the Global South as a way of addressing inequality. These policies were in three parts: wealth redistribution, income redistribution and provision of public goods. Although there has been progress made in addressing specific inequalities through some of these policies, eradicating the associated socio-economic inequalities has been elusive. There are also several coordinated interventions that seek to address different types of inequalities such as health, human rights, gender and education. The lifelines of these interventions also depend on and are driven by funding and thought leadership from the Global North. Limited success has been achieved with these interventions, and evaluations have been guilty of paying too much attention to accountability instead of the impact of these programmes (Ebrahim 2005; Mayne 2017). The next section will present how evaluation can play a critical role in building a just society in the Global South. Contribution of evaluation to addressing inequality Inequality as a phenomenon and the scholarship around it are not new. The chasm between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and the vas