EDITED BY Steven Masvaure, Takunda Chirau, Tebogo Fish, Samukelisiwe Mkhize and Candice Morkel Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South EVALUATION: AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES – Volume 2 Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South Evaluation: African Perspectives Volume 2 Published by AOSIS Books, an imprint 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 2024 © Steven Masvaure, Takunda Chirau, Tebogo Fish, Samukelisiwe Mkhize and Candice Morkel. 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 photo created by AI for Shutterstock {2421644845} obtained from Shutterstock.com, available from African Architecture African Patterns Ramadan Decorations AI-generated image 2421644845 | Shutterstock, under the terms of the Shutterstock License Agreement. Published in 2024 Impression: 1 ISBN: 978-1-77995-326-1 (paperback) ISBN: 978-1-77995-358-2 (casebound) ISBN: 978-1-77995-327-8 (epub) ISBN: 978-1-77995-328-5 (pdf) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465 This work: Masvaure, S, Chirau, T, Fish, T, Mkhize, S & Morkel, C (eds.), 2024, Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 2, 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. 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. 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. https://www.aosis.co.za� http://Shutterstock.com https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465� http://www.oapen.org� http://www.doabooks.org/� https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/� mailto:publishing@aosis.co.za EDITED BY Steven Masvaure, Takunda Chirau, Tebogo Fish, Samukelisiwe Mkhize and Candice Morkel Evaluation: African Perspectives Volume 2 Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South iv Social Sciences, Humanities, Education and Business Management domain editorial board at AOSIS Chief 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 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 rigorous two-step peer- review before publication by two technical expert reviewers who did not include the volume editors and authors and were independent of the volume editors, with the identities of the reviewers not revealed to the volume editors and authors. The reviewers were independent of the publisher, volume editors and authors. The publisher shared feedback on the similarity report and the reviewers’ inputs with the manuscript’s volume editors and authors to improve the manuscript. Where the reviewers recommended revision and improvements, the volume editors and 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 curable disparities among various individuals, regardless of how these groups are delineated, whether by social, economic, demographic or geographic factors. Equity aims to eliminate the unfair and avoidable circumstances that deprive people of their rights. Therefore, inequities generally arise when certain populations are unfairly deprived of essential resources made available to other groups. A disparity is ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’ when its cause results from 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 to advance equity. It emphasises that context, culture, history and beliefs shape the nature of assessments, 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, there is an urgent 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 still lacks access to essential 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 climate change’s effects. In this manuscript, the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), has conducted analyses on equitable evaluation in the Global South context, in order to make a contribution to this aspect of evaluation studies, to explore what is inequality in the African context, and how does it affect the lives of the citizens of African countries; what is equitable evaluation; how can the concept of equitable evaluation be adopted in evaluation practice; what lessons can be learnt from evaluations of interventions that address inequality at various levels (sectoral, programmatic and project); what epistemological transformation in evaluation practice is needed to achieve an equitable society; and how have issues of inequality manifested within evaluation practice through organisations, institutions and international development. The predominant methodology utilised is qualitative. Through improved evaluation processes, these insights will help address inequality and promote a more equitable society in Africa. No part of this work was plagiarised or published elsewhere. Chapter 5, ‘Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination as an evaluand: The case of private sector and financial system development in German development cooperation’, by Candice Morkel, Jan Tobias Polak, Angela Heucher, Lena Taube and Lea Smidt, is based on a previous publication and the necessary acknowledgement is provided. This book’s target audience is academics engaged in the field of developmental programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. 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. vii Contents Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xv List of abbreviations and acronyms xv List of figures xvi List of tables xvii Notes on contributors xix Acknowledgements xxix Overview of the book xxxi Chapter 1: Elusive equitable development? 1 Steven Masvaure, Tebogo Fish & Samukelisiwe Mkhize Introduction 1 The Equitable Evaluation Framework 4 Critique of the Equitable Evaluation Framework 6 Can cultural competence promote equitable development? 8 How to promote equitable evaluation 8 Inequities are rooted in history and context 9 Equity starts at programme conceptualisation 10 Equitable programme design 10 Equitable programme implementation and monitoring 11 Decolonisation and equitable evaluation 11 Conclusion 12 Chapter 2: Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone 13 Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa Introduction 13 Background 15 Features of Africa’s evaluation systems 17 Donor-driven evaluation 17 Evaluation system for learning 20 Made in Africa evaluation 21 Theories of change for equity-oriented evaluation system design 23 Conclusion 24 Contents viii Chapter 3: System thinking for evaluators to enhance gender equity and transformation in Africa 25 Madri Jansen van Rensburg Introduction 25 Concepts 27 Gender, equity and evaluation 28 Evaluators’ responsibility 30 Transformation 31 Systems thinking 31 System thinking in evaluation: Concepts and principles 32 Bioecological systems model 34 The individual 34 Microsystem 34 Mesosystem 34 Exosystem 34 Macrosystem 35 Chronosystem 35 Theoretical framework 35 Measuring system transformation in combination with existing criteria 37 Gender and equity criteria 38 System transformation criteria 39 System description 40 System structure – coherence and boundaries 40 System dynamics – interrelatedness 40 System changes – transformation 42 Sustainability of the system 43 Leverage points 43 Ethical issues and evaluator responsibilities 45 Conclusion 45 Chapter 4: (De)paternalising evaluation: ‘Equity and equality’ – the missing ‘vocabulary’ in Zimbabwe 47 Umali Saidi Introduction 47 Zimbabwe, the illustrative context 48 Conceptualising evaluation 51 Methodology 54 Paternalism 54 Contents ix Evaluation and the fundamentals of ‘equity’ and ‘equality’ 58 Final thought 62 Conclusion 66 Chapter 5: Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination as an evaluand: The case of private sector and financial system development in German development cooperation 67 Candice Morkel, Jan Tobias Polak, Angela Heucher, Lena Taube & Lea Smidt Introduction 68 The case for equity-focused evaluation 73 Conceptualising equity-focused or equitable evaluation 74 Principles of equitable evaluation: The Equitable Evaluation Framework 75 Reflecting on the evaluation of human rights-based approaches to development in service of equity-focused evaluation: The case of German development cooperation 77 Principle 1: Evaluation and evaluative work should be in service of equity 77 Principle 2: Evaluative work should be designed and implemented commensurate with the values underlying equity work 80 Principle 3: Anchoring equality of opportunity and non-discrimination 85 Discussion: Equity-focused evaluation to strengthen equality of opportunity and non-discrimination 88 Implications 91 Conclusion 94 Chapter 6: Equitable evaluation through the triple lens: Commissioner, evaluator and wider benefiting community, to what extent do we espouse the trio in the African evaluation practice? 95 Rose Cathy Azuba Introduction 95 Method and approach 99 Review and findings 100 Definitions and principles of ‘equitable’ and ‘inequitable’ evaluation 100 What are the key roles played by the evaluation commissioner, technical expert and community in ensuring that equitable evaluation is incorporated in the evaluation design, execution and results management? 102 Commissioner 104 Evaluator 106 Community 108 Contents x Equity – related concerns reported as challenges in evaluation reports 109 Discussion 110 What is the future for equitable evaluation on the continent? What are some of the recommendations that the chapter presents as actions by the trio to address inequitable evaluation? 112 Planning 112 Resources 113 Data and information sharing 113 Multi-cultural diversity 114 Participation 114 Conclusion 115 Chapter 7: Gender and equity responsiveness in evaluation: The case of South Africa 117 Stanford Muhomba, Khumo Pule & Lungiswa Zibi Introduction 117 Background and context of equity and gender-focused evaluations in South Africa 119 Challenges in ensuring gender-focused evaluation 121 Findings and discussion 123 Understanding the context of South Africa in equity and gender mainstreaming 123 Gender responsive planning, budgeting, monitoring, evaluation and auditing framework, 2019 124 Gender responsive evaluations guideline: How to conduct gender-based evaluations? 125 Draft evaluation guideline: Integrating a transformative equity criterion in evaluations for promoting transformative systemic change 125 Assessment of gender and equity responsiveness in evaluations conducted in the South African government 126 Impact evaluation of early grade reading study in South Africa (2016/17) 129 Implementation evaluation of detective services and crime investigation (2017/18) 129 Diagnostic evaluation on gender-based violence and femicide in South Africa (2016/17) 130 Evaluation of the integrated strategy for the promotion of entrepreneurship and small enterprises (2017/18) 131 Evaluation of the gender-based initiative (2016/17) 132 Contents xi Lessons learnt 133 Recommendations 134 Conclusion 136 Chapter 8: Current epistemological challenges in evaluation perpetuating inequality in Africa 137 Tebogo Fish & Vongai Chibvongodze Introduction 137 History of evaluation research paradigms 139 Definitions 139 Paradigm wars 141 Triggering alternative paradigms 143 Evaluation, evidence and paradigms 149 Critiques of orthodox evaluation 150 What to investigate 150 How to investigate it 153 What data to generate 155 How to ensure its validity, credibility and usability 156 How to analyse the data 157 What conclusions can be drawn 158 Conclusion 159 Chapter 9: Cash-based transfers – transfers a double-edged sword: Lessons for evaluators 161 Andiswa Neku, Tebogo Fish & Steven Masvaure Introduction 161 Background 162 Cash-based transfers 164 Unconditional cash transfer programme vs conditional cash transfer 165 Uses of cash-based transfers 166 Benefits of cash-based transfers 167 Reduce poverty 167 Improve nutrition and increase dietary diversity 168 Financial savings 168 Better educational outcomes 169 Unintended consequences of cash transfers 170 What should evaluators do? 171 Contents xii Explore culture, values and gender social norms 171 Evaluation questions are framed so that they are holistic 172 Explore the invisible effects of the programme 172 Ex-post evaluations 173 Conclusion 173 Chapter 10: In quest of equitable evaluation 175 Steven Masvaure, Tebogo Fish & Samukelisiwe Mkhize Introduction 175 A call to action for programme funders 176 Neo-liberal development approaches have a limited impact on addressing inequality 176 ‘Mind my privilege and biases’ 177 Do not treat symptoms and no universal programme design 177 Learning focus instead of accountability 178 Ex-ante evaluations are key to doing no harm 178 A call to action for programme designers and implementers 178 Be deliberate about learning and adaptive management during programme implementation 178 Achieving equity is not optional at the design phase 179 Factor in political economy 179 Co-create and adapt to community priorities 180 A call to action for evaluators 180 Be prepared to displease the funders and programme implementers 180 Examine the root cause of the problem that is being addressed by the programme 181 Assess if a programme is contributing to or perpetuating inequalities 181 A call to challenge Global North’s grip on evaluation approaches and methodologies 182 Objectivity does not justify continuing with the status quo 182 Methodological implication 182 We are more worried about the inequalities created by the programme than about the inequalities that existed before the programme was implemented 183 Contents xiii Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Assistance Committee criteria are for guidance purposes 184 Role of targeted communities in advancing equitable evaluation or equitable development 184 Conclusion: Advancing equitable evaluation 185 References 187 Index 211 xv Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes List of abbreviations and acronyms AEA American Evaluation Association AFRED African Evaluation Database AGDEN Africa Gender and Development Evaluators Network CDC Centre for Disease Control CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CLEAR-AA Centre for Learning and Evaluation and Results for Anglophone Africa COS Child Online Safety CP Child Protect CR Child Rights CSOs civil society organisations DAC Development Assistance Committee DPME Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EEF Equitable Evaluation Framework EEI Equitable Evaluation Initiative EGRS Early Grade Reading Study ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme FC financial development cooperation FDI foreign direct investment FTLP Fast Track Land Reform Programme GBVF gender-based violence and femicide GNI gross national income HIV and Aids human immunodeficiency and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome IDEAS International Development Evaluation Association IEA International Evaluation Academy IMF International Monetary Fund Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xvi ISPESE Integrated Strategy on the Promotion of Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprises LAC Latin American and Caribbean LMICs low- and middle-income countries LNOB Leave No One Behind M&E monitoring and evaluation MAE Made in Africa Evaluation MSMES Macro, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises NDP National Development Plan NEPF National Evaluation Policy Framework NES national evaluation systems NGO non-governmental organisations OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SAMEA South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association SDGs sustainable development goals SIDA The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency TC Technical Development Cooperation ToC theory of change ToR terms of reference UN United Nations UNCEB United Nations System Chief Executives Board UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund USAID The United States Agency for International Development VOPEs Voluntary Organizations for Professional Evaluation YEE Young and Emerging Evaluators ZANU–PF Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front List of figures Figure 3.1: Cross-cutting gender and time influence in the bioecological model. 36 Figure 3.2: Interlinkages of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and its Development Assistance Committee criteria. 38 Figure 3.3: Structure of the system and sub-systems within the larger systems (child online safety example). 41 Figure 3.4: Interactions of parts, sub-systems, systems and context. 42 Abbreviations and acronyms, figures and tables appearing in the text and notes xvii Figure 5.1: Realisation of indicators corresponding to non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in case studies. 84 Figure 6.1: Inter-relations between the trio – commissioner, evaluators and communities in evaluation and degree of influence. 103 Figure 7.1: Adaptation of the Independent Evaluation Office Gender Results Responsiveness Scale. 127 List of tables Table 3.1: Decalogue of evaluation from a gender perspective. 29 Table 3.2: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and its Development Assistance Committee criteria. 37 Table 3.3: Gender evaluation questions. 39 Table 3.4: System change and transformation evaluation questions. 43 Table 3.5: Sustainability evaluation questions. 44 Table 5.1: Intended outcomes and impacts by specific groups. 83 Table 6.1: The role of the commissioner in designing and implementing equitable evaluation. 104 Table 6.2: The role of the evaluator in designing and implementing equitable evaluation. 107 Table 6.3: Role and characteristics of the community or beneficiaries. 109 Table 7.1: Rubric for measuring gender and equity responsiveness in evaluations conducted in the South African government. 128 xix Notes on contributors Andiswa Neku 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: andiswa.neku@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3673-5397 Andiswa Neku is a programme associate at the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), where she plays a pivotal role in enhancing the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices across the region. With a solid academic foundation, Neku holds both a BA (Law) and International Relations and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of the Witwatersrand. Currently, she is furthering her expertise by pursuing a postgraduate diploma in Public Management, specialising in M&E. This additional qualification underscores her drive to contribute to the field of public management with a nuanced perspective. Her educational journey reflects a commitment to understanding the complex interplay between legal frameworks and international dynamics. Neku’s unique blend of analytical skills and legal acumen enables her to approach M&E with a critical eye and a comprehensive understanding of the regulatory and procedural aspects of the field. Her background in law enriches her ability to navigate the complexities of policy evaluation and implementation, ensuring that projects not only meet their objectives but also adhere to legal and ethical standards. Passionate about applying evaluation principles to real-world projects, Neku is committed to driving impactful change through rigorous and insightful evaluations. Her work at CLEAR-AA involves collaborating with various stakeholders to promote evidence-based decision-making and enhance the effectiveness of development initiatives. By bridging the gap between theory and practice, Neku is making significant contributions to the field of monitoring and evaluation, aiming to foster sustainable development and positive social impact in Anglophone Africa. Angela Heucher German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Bonn, Germany Email: angela.heucher@deval.org ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7454-7481 Angela Heucher is a senior evaluator and team leader in the sustainable economic and social development department at the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Germany. Heucher holds a PhD in Political mailto:andiswa.neku%40wits.ac.za?subject= https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3673-5397� mailto:angela.heucher@deval.org https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7454-7481� Notes on contributors xx Science obtained from the University of Potsdam and an MA in Political Science from Freie Universität Berlin. Heucher’s research interests encompass gender equality and human rights, post-conflict contexts, multilateral development cooperation and global food security governance. Heucher has published on these topics and co-authored evaluation reports, concretely on the promotion of sustainable supply chains and human rights in German development policy with a focus on private sector and financial system development and on supporting gender equality in post-conflict contexts. Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa School of Governance, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: caitlin.mapitsa@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-8451 Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa is a senior lecturer, holding a PhD in Migration and Displacement from the University of the Witwatersrand’s African Centre for Migration and Society. She received an MA from the same institution, a BA from Wellesley College in International Relations and French, and a postgraduate diploma from the University of Stellenbosch in Monitoring and Evaluation. She is also the research director at the School. Mapitsa has worked as an evaluator in civil society, with Resilient Waters evaluating efforts to foster climate resilience in the Okavango and Limpopo river basins, as well as establishing learning systems with the Global Call to Action Against Poverty. She also worked with the CLEAR- AA, supporting efforts to strengthen M&E systems within public sector institutions across the region through peer learning. Mapitsa’s research interests focus on two areas – the first is transboundary governance, of both land and people. She is interested in understanding what drives change in complex social and ecological systems, and which tools can best help us understand these changes. The second is on building contextually relevant evaluation approaches, and how evaluation can be a tool to align institutional practice with values systems and developmental objectives. 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 (PhD) is the academic head of the IPDET Programme at the Zentrum für universitäre Weiterbildung at the University of Bern, mailto:caitlin.mapitsa@wits.ac.za https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-8451� mailto:candice.morkel@wits.ac.za https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-9526� Notes on contributors xxi Switzerland, and is the past director of CLEAR-AA. She has nearly more than 25 years’ experience in government, academia and the non-profit sector, specialising in M&E and public policy. For eight years, Morkel focused primarily on working with governments and development partners across the African continent to help build better systems of evidence production and use towards strengthening national evaluation systems. As the IPDET Programme HoD, her focus is on ensuring the growth of the globally recognised evaluation capacity development programme, expanding its reach and sustaining its legacy. She has published peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and edited books on M&E, and supervises local and international MA and PhD students in evaluation. She is a legacy board member of the African Evaluation Association, legacy chair of the South African M&E Association and is legacy board member of the International Evaluation Academy. Jan Tobias Polak German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Bonn, Germany Email: tobias.polak@deval.org ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3237-4554 Tobias Polak is a senior evaluator and team leader in the human rights and civil society department at the German Institute for Development Evaluation (Deval), Germany. Polak holds a PhD in Social Sciences and Economics obtained from the University of Vienna, Austria. His research interests encompass evaluation research, evaluation methodology and methods as well as human rights and aid effectiveness. He has published on these topics and co-authored evaluation reports. Polak is part of the executive board of the German Evaluation Society DEval. Khumo Pule Centre for Learning on Evaluations and Results, Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Faculty of Commerce Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: khumo.pule@wits.ac.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2645-7220 Khumo Pule is a M&E officer at CLEAR-AA, Faculty of Commerce, Law, and Management, University of the Witwatersrand. She is completing her MA in M&E, having finished coursework, and holds a postgraduate diploma in M&E. Pule has experience in enhancing evidence use for African Parliaments and strengthening M&E systems in both the public and private sectors. Additionally, she has extensive experience in conducting evaluations in the education and information and communications technology sectors. mailto:tobias.polak@deval.org https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3237-4554� mailto:khumo.pule@wits.ac.za https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2645-7220� Notes on contributors xxii Lea Smidt German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, Bonn, Germany Email: lea.smidt@deval.org ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0752-8563 Lea Smidt is a senior policy officer and data scientist at the Data Lab of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development. Smidt holds an MSc in European Studies obtained from Maastricht University, an MA in Political Sciences obtained from the University of Cologne and a BA in Political Science and African Studies from Sciences Po Paris. Smidt is a Government Analytics Fellow of the World Bank and recipient of the Daniël Heinsius Prize for the best MA thesis in Political Sciences awarded by the Dutch-Flemish Political Science Association. Her research interests lie in the fields of human rights, development policy, quantitative methods and data use in public administration. Lena Taube German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Bonn, Germany Email: lena.taube@deval.org ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7644-1411 Lena Taube is an evaluator at the German Institute for Development Cooperation in the Department of Civil Society, Human Rights, Germany. Taube holds an MSc in Sociology, Politics and Social Research and an MA in Empowerment Studies obtained from the University of Cologne and the University of Applied Science Düsseldorf. Taube is currently working as an evaluator at DEval, where she conducts evaluations with a focus on human rights. She also works on human rights-based approaches to evaluation and how aspects such as human rights and gender could be integrated throughout the evaluation process and content. Lungiswa Zibi Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), Pretoria, South Africa Email: lulu.zibi@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6337-6961 Lungiswa Zibi is an evaluator with over a decade of experience in the fields of M&E and strategic planning. Throughout her career, she has been instrumental in advancing evaluation systems and frameworks across various key governmental departments in South Africa. Her notable contributions began at the Department of Environmental Affairs, where she played a pivotal role in developing and implementing evaluation mechanisms to assess environmental programmes. Zibi further extended her impact at the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. Here, she played a pivotal role in establishing, managing and reviewing the National Evaluation System (NES). At the Department of Science and mailto:lea.smidt@deval.org https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0752-8563� mailto:lena.taube@deval.org https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7644-1411� mailto:lulu.zibi@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6337-6961� Notes on contributors xxiii Innovation, Zibi spearheaded the institutionalisation of the departmental evaluation system. Currently, Zibi leads the evaluation efforts at the Department of Tourism. In this role, she focuses on enhancing strategic decision-making and policy development to foster sustainable growth within the tourism sector. Her management in this area ensures that evaluation processes are integral to shaping policies that promote economic development and environmental sustainability. Zibi’s career is marked by her dedication to improving public sector performance through rigorous evaluation practices. Her ability to integrate evaluation into strategic planning has made her a key figure in shaping policies that drive sustainable development. Madri Jansen van Rensburg Resilience Analysis Consulting, Johannesburg, South Africa Email: madrijvr@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-3493 Madri Jansen van Rensburg is a research and consulting psychologist doing research, M&E and organisational development work. She mainly works in countries in East and Southern Africa. She works on individual, group, community and country levels and has conducted various multi-country and cross-cultural studies including studies across all African regions. Van Rensburg’s research interests include children’s rights, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and gender, using participatory and mixed- methods approaches. She has a special interest in the resilience of communities and individuals facing adverse conditions. She has completed various evaluation studies for public, private and civil society. Rose Cathy Azuba Department of Livestock and Industrial Resources, School of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Email: roseazuba@gmail.com; rose.azuba@mak.ac.ug ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8730-5231 Rose Azuba is a senior lecturer in the Department of Livestock and Industrial Resources at Makerere University Kampala, Uganda. Azuba holds an MA degree (MADEM) in Development Evaluation and Management from the University of Antwerp, Belgium; a PhD in Viral Immunology; an MA of Science in Veterinary Medicine (MSc) and a Bachelors in Veterinary Medicine (BVM). Azuba has 15 years’ experience in evaluation and institutional performance assessments, participating in or leading over 40 national and international assignments in several countries, including Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Swaziland, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Cote D’Ivoire in Africa and Thailand, Myanmar, New Zealand and the Czech Republic. mailto:madrijvr@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-3493� mailto:roseazuba@gmail.com mailto:rose.azuba@mak.ac.ug https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8730-5231� Notes on contributors xxiv 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 CLEAR-AA, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. She holds an MSocSc in Policy and Development Studies from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN). Mkhize has extensive experience in climate adaptation and mitigation in smallholder systems, supporting the development of climate-smart agriculture decision support systems. Her current research interests are the conceptualisation of climate justice in complex socio-ecological systems and public policy responses to climate adaptation and mitigation in Africa. Stanford Muhomba Citofield Consulting, Pretoria, South Africa Email: stanford@citofield.co.za ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9956-0282 Stanford Muhomba holds an MPhil in M&E and is currently finalising his PhD in Development Studies, focusing on gender and equity-focused evaluations. With over 15 years of professional experience, he serves as the director at Citofield Consulting, where he has been involved in more than 50 evaluation and research projects. Muhomba has developed expertise in M&E methodologies throughout his career, specialising in integrating gender and equity perspectives. He is proficient in using innovative tools and techniques to enhance the accuracy and utility of evaluation findings, including mixed-methods approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative data to provide a holistic view of programme outcomes. Throughout his career, Stanford has worked with a diverse range of organisations and stakeholders, including government agencies, non-profit organisations and private corporations. His evaluations have covered a wide array of sectors, such as health care, education, agriculture and economic development. This breadth of experience has equipped Muhomba with a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with evaluations in various contexts. A significant aspect of Muhomba’s career is his focus on capacity building and knowledge sharing. He regularly conducts training workshops and seminars to equip other professionals with the skills necessary for effective M&E. mailto:samukelisiwe.mkhize@wits.ac.za https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6381-662X� mailto:stanford@citofield.co.za https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9956-0282� Notes on contributors xxv 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 the University of the Witwatersrand. He holds a PhD in Development Studies. Steven possesses more than 15 years of working experience as a researcher and evaluator in the development sector across several African countries. He is an expert in strengthening country-led M&E systems in Anglophone Africa. His areas of interest include local government, climate change adaptation, food security, public employment programmes, social protection and M&E. He has also worked as an evaluator in several African countries and published research papers on food security transforming evaluation (Made in Africa Evaluation), adaptive management of climate change and national evaluation systems. 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 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. Chirau has a PhD in Sociology from Rhodes University. He has been working in the M&E discipline and has practised for more than 12 years. Chirau has conducted several National Evaluation Capacity Development (NECD) activities. Some of these activities have been carried out through the respective United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) country offices and East and Southern Africa regional offices. His contributions to the M&E discipline and profession are evident in countries like Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Lesotho, Namibia, Botswana, Tanzania, Liberia and Zimbabwe, to mention a few. He is a former board member of the South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA). mailto:smasvaure@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4172-6206� mailto:tkchirau@icloud.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8506-7359� Notes on contributors xxvi 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 and programme manager at CLEAR-AA, hosted by the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management (CLM) at the University of the Witwatersrand. Fish holds a BA (Honours) degree in Psychology obtained from Stellenbosch University, and an MA degree in Research Psychology obtained from Wits University. Fish has been working in the M&E field for eight years. Her research interests include interventions and best practices in addressing social issues in Africa (such as poverty, unemployment, inequality, homelessness, etc.), discourses on and public sector interventions to mitigate mental illness and neurodevelopment challenges in Africa. She also has research interests in topics important to the M&E field in Africa, including culturally and contextually relevant approaches to the M&E in Africa such as Made in Africa Evaluation. Fish is also a supervisor of several students in the MA of Management in Governance (Public and Development M&E) course, and a sessional lecturer for the postgraduate diploma in Management Public and Development Sector M&E course, both at Wits University. She has authored and co-authored five published peer-reviewed journal articles on various M&E-related topics including Made in Africa Evaluation, evaluation capacity strengthening, African Voluntary Organizations for Professional Evaluations (VOPEs), etc. Fish is a co-editor of Part 1 of this book (https://doi. org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459) and has also authored and co-authored three chapters in the book. Fish is also a co-author of a book chapter in an upcoming book by the Center for Evaluation (CEval). Umali Saidi Research and Innovation Division, Midlands State University, Gweru, Zimbabwe Email: saidiu@staff.msu.ac.zw ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-6789 Umali Saidi is the postgraduate studies manager (Research and Innovation Division), senior lecturer and the Editor-in-Chief of The Dyke Journal – a multidisciplinary journal at the Midlands State University, Zimbabwe. He is also an associate editor of the African Evaluation Journal. Saidi holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and is a staunch and avid researcher with interests in knowledge management and indigenous knowledge systems, especially as linked to M&E. 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 African continent. mailto:tebogo.fish1@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-8135� mailto:saidiu@staff.msu.ac.zw https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-6789� https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2023.BK459 Notes on contributors xxvii Vongai Chibvongodze 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: vongaichibvo@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0848-4770 Vongai Chibvongodze is currently a student studying towards an MA of Economic Science at the University of the Witwatersrand. Chibvongodze holds a BA of Economic Science with Honours and a BA of Commerce in Politics, Philosophy and Economics obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand. Chibvongodze is the recipient of the Postgraduate Merit Award and Certificates of First Class in Politics and Philosophy awarded by the University of the Witwatersrand in the years 2021 and 2018 to 2019, respectively. Chibvongodze focuses on work and research in evaluation, macroeconomics, development economics and econometrics. Her honours thesis was centred around the investigation of whether the earnings gap between black women and other social groups in South Africa has improved in the post-Apartheid era. The purpose was to track the socio-economic progress of previously disadvantaged groups in the country while identifying possible underlying and persistent causes of the remaining earning gap. Chibvongodze is currently working on corporate and investment banking operations at the Standard Bank Group. She previously worked within the Advisory division of the M&E consultancy Data Innovators, working within Digital Data Solutions (DDS) and M&E services. She also worked as a programme associate at CLEAR-AA. Chibvongodze’s has contributed to numerous influential projects, including evaluations for the Tiger Brands Foundation’s In-School Breakfast Programme, Bezos Earth Fund’s climate initiatives and MasterCard Foundation M&E framework development for their Young Impact Associates programme. mailto:vongaichibvo@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0848-4770� xxix Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the financial support from the Ford Foundation. The editors would like to extend their gratitude to all the reviewers and several individuals who worked behind the scenes to make this publication a success. xxxi Overview of the book This book is Volume 2 of a duology that seeks 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 questions: (1) Take stock of what we know about inequality – what inequality is in the African context, and how does it affect the lives of the citizens of African countries?, (2)  What does equitable evaluation mean? 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 and project) levels?, (4) What epistemological transformation in evaluation practice is needed to achieve an equitable society?, and (5) How have issues of inequality manifested within evaluation  practice through organisations, institutions and international development? The chapter overview is as follows: In Chapter 1, ‘Elusive equitable development?’, Steven Masvaure, Tebogo Fish and Samukelisiwe Mkhize introduce the concept of equitable development. They highlight that the ultimate goal of equitable evaluation is equitable development. They further chronicle the history of equitable evaluation and critique the Equitable Evaluation Framework, cultural competence and gender-sensitive evaluation. They end the chapter by providing approaches that can bring equitable evaluation. In Chapter 2, ‘Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone’, Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa emphasises equity-focused evaluation and evaluation to address inequality. She argues that while the evaluation sector has adopted a vocabulary and language around progressive social change, many features of evaluation systems limit its ability to serve as a tool to address inequality meaningfully. Three interrelated components drive this. Firstly, when evaluations are commissioned as activities primarily serving the interests of the donor, it inherently creates a bias in determining what to evaluate and how to approach the evaluations. Secondly, by transitioning to a learning-based, ‘opt-in’ system for evaluation commissioning, organisations, departments and programmes with strong management How to cite: Masvaure, S, Chirau, T, Fish, T, Mkhize, S & Morkel, C (eds.), 2024, ‘Overview of the book’, in S Masvaure, T Chirau, T Fish, S Mkhize & C Morkel (eds.), Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 2, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. xxxi–xxxiv. https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.00 https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.00 Overview of the book xxxii structures gain access to more information, which enables them to enhance their performance and bridge capacity gaps more effectively. Finally, the emphasis on users by evaluators and commissioners creates a challenge in moving beyond what is politically feasible. In Chapter 3, ‘System thinking for evaluators to enhance gender equity and transformation in Africa’, Madri Jansen van Rensburg highlights that gender is one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) that influence all 17 SDGs and affect gender transformation. She argues that a lasting transformation towards equity is only possible through system changes. Evaluations play a vital role in this transformation. She emphasises that evaluators need to develop skills and competencies to recognise, assess, influence and facilitate system change to enable transformation and equity for gender and equity in general. In Chapter 4, ‘(De)paternalising evaluation: “Equity and equality” – the missing “vocabulary” in Zimbabwe’, Umali Saidi highlights that calls for equity and equality in Africa, specifically in Zimbabwe, using ‘evaluation’ dominate developmental debates in the region and beyond. He further highlights that evaluation efforts to eliminate the unfair and avoidable circumstances that deprive African citizens of their rights to education, health care, food and freedom of expression, among others, need to be contextualised in order to respect the epistemological outlook of the targeted people. Generally, inequities arise when certain population groups are unfairly deprived of their basic resources, rights, participation in activities or opportunities available to other groups within the same space. This chapter, therefore, explores how ‘paternalistic’ evaluation depolarises toxic political cultures in countries such as Zimbabwe to use evaluation to address inequity and inequality in society. It is hoped that the chapter contributes knowledge on the role of evaluation as a practice to foster an equitable society in Africa. In Chapter 5, ‘Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination as an evaluand: The case of private sector and financial system development in German development cooperation’, Candice Morkel, Jan Tobias Polak, Angela Heucher, Lena Taube and Lea Smidt examine how human rights principles promote equity. They use a case study that highlights that equality of opportunity and non-discrimination are human rights principles and, as such, fundamental elements of human rights-based approaches to development cooperation. This chapter deals with implementing equal opportunities and non-discrimination in developing cooperation. Based on the case of a strategic evaluation of the German human rights-based approach to development, only some of the private sector and financial system development projects anchor equal opportunities and non- discrimination and are effective for marginalised groups. One of the main Overview of the book xxxiii reasons for this is perceived tensions between project-specific aims and objectives of the human rights-based approach. Methodological bases for this are empirical case studies in Nigeria and India and an evaluation synthesis. In Chapter 6, ‘Equitable evaluation through the triple lens: Commissioner, evaluator and wider benefiting community, to what extent do we espouse the trio in the African evaluation practice?’, Rose Cathy Azuba examines the functional definitions of equitable evaluation and to what extent the concepts are applied in evaluation processes and practice on the African continent. She further interrogates the key roles played by the evaluation commissioner, technical expert and community (herein referred to as the ‘trio’) in ensuring that equitable evaluation is incorporated in the evaluation design, execution and results management. Her findings contribute to the broad view of equitable development. In Chapter 7, ‘Gender and equity responsiveness in evaluation: The case of South Africa’, Stanford Muhomba, Khumo Pule and Lungiswa Zibi examine the initiatives that the South African government has undertaken to mainstream the principles of equity and gender in planning, commissioning and undertaking evaluations – based on analysis of the evaluation reports in the National Evaluation System (NES) that is supported by the National Evaluation Plan(s) (NEP) which are five-year rolling. Their findings highlight the challenges faced in incorporating gender and equity dimensions in evaluations. In Chapter 8, ‘Current epistemological challenges in evaluation perpetuating inequality in Africa’, Tebogo Fish and Vongai Chibvongodze discuss the fact that generating quality evaluation evidence largely depends on selecting the most appropriate approaches and methods. This chapter calls on evaluators to make paradigms a key part of the conversation when designing evaluations, particularly the data collection and analysis processes. It shows that data collection and analysis methods reflect underlying assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge and the role of values. The chapter argues that evaluators often choose methods based on prevailing discourse or hierarchies of evidence, leading to a tendency to fit the problem into selected methods rather than selecting the most appropriate methods that fit the problem. This chapter shows that equitable evaluation puts values, specifically axiological assumptions, at the centre of evaluation design and selection of methodologies. They conclude the chapter by asserting that for evaluation to contribute to equitable development in Africa; the Afrocentricity paradigm should be the guiding framework for evaluative work, as it places African people and their experience at the centre of its worldview. Overview of the book xxxiv In Chapter 9, ‘Cash-based transfers – transfers a double-edged sword: Lessons for evaluators’, Andiswa Neku, Tebogo Fish and Steven Masvaure examine the well-known issue of unintended consequences and argue that evaluations are rarely targeted on unintended outcomes; evaluators need to do more if interventions are to avert exacerbating inequities in communities. They demonstrate this using popular cash-based transfers. They end the chapter by providing some guidelines to evaluators on how to tackle programmes’ unintended outcomes. In Chapter 10, ‘In quest of equitable evaluation’, Steven Masvaure, Tebogo Fish and Samukelisiwe Mkhize conclude the volume by calling all the different actors in the development space to action. They are specific on the roles and responsibilities of programme funders, implementers and evaluators. They emphasise the centrality of the targeted communities in every action and decision taken. 1 How to cite: Masvaure, S, Fish, T & Mkhize, S 2024, ‘Elusive equitable development?’, in S Masvaure, T Chirau, T Fish, S Mkhize & C Morkel (eds.), Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 2, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. 1–12. https//doi. org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.01 ‘We are drowning; only what evaluations do is to describe the water.’ Introduction Africa has experienced several challenges that had an impact on its development trajectory. Volume 1 of this series sets the foundation and builds a stronger argument in examining the current challenges traced back to significant events such as slavery, colonisation and the current post-colonial power asymmetries. The impact of these significant events is that they created inequalities and impoverished millions of people. There have been several attempts by various players to address some of these inequalities and impoverishments under the ambit of international Elusive equitable development? 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 Chapter 1 https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.01� https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.01� Elusive equitable development? 2 development; however, the impact of such attempts is yet to be realised. Hence, most African populations are still struggling to access clean water, education, food, health, and shelter. In addition, they are often treated as humans with fewer rights. Amid these problems, African populations deal with new emerging problems, including climate change, increasing natural disasters, political instability and pandemics that chip away at some of the achievements of development. A closer examination of the aid and investments that have been made in the African development space shows that realising full development is elusive unless there is a paradigm shift. Within this elusive development conundrum, there is a realisation that individuals, communities and African countries also have to deal with a less understood problem of inequality that is ingrained in communities and how different countries relate to each other. These inequalities are shown in the unequal distribution of resources based on an unjust power imbalance, often because of injustices against historically excluded or marginalised groups of people (Hasty, Lewis & Snipes 2022). Besides resources, there are also social inequalities which lead to inequity when the groups that have power over the distribution of resource allocation do so in ways that further oppress marginalised groups. Social inequalities are inequalities resulting from people’s backgrounds and how opportunities were afforded or limited because of systems of capitalism, colonialism, racism, sexism, classism and other forms of oppression (Hasty et al. 2022). In the international development space, evaluators have touted evaluation as a tool that can help bring equitable development among individuals, households, countries and continents. Within the development literature, equitable development puts equity at the forefront and meets the needs of deprived communities through policies and programmes that reduce inequalities (Blackwell 2000). Evaluators are being called to put equity at the forefront of the evaluation process and ensure that the evaluation meets the needs of the deprived communities, thereby achieving equitable evaluation. This is supported by a growing call to reform the traditional approaches to evaluation so that it is reflective of the context and communities where interventions are implemented. The call to reform is based on the limited function of the traditional evaluation methods in transforming and addressing the evaluation power ‘dynamics and practices that have historically undervalued the voices, knowledge, expertise, capacity and experiences of all evaluation participants and stakeholders, particularly people’ from Africa (Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative 2020). The current international development approach has been centred on improving economic growth with the hope that with increasing economic growth, income inequality (and thus other forms of inequality) will decrease (characterised by the Kuznets’ inverted U curve). However, recent literature from several developing countries has shown that there is no relationship Chapter 1 3 between economic growth and declining inequality (Kuhonta 2011). For the past decades, the driving development approach of neoliberal globalisation in the Global South, including Africa, has never paid attention to inequality (Hujo 2021). However, evidence is emerging that despite the increasing economic growth, wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few (Fuentes- Nieva & Galasso 2014). Countries such as South Africa have shown that inequality has not been reduced, despite making strides in economic growth. The poor progress in addressing inequality in Africa is ascribed to its colonial history, which ensured that most of the citizens have very limited access to the means of production and do not have the power to decide how their resources are used or set their own development agenda – hence they cannot benefit from the growing economic growth (Hanlon, Barrientos & Hulme 2012). Equitable evaluation is not a new phenomenon, it has been in existence in the evaluation space in different forms for several decades. Equitable evaluation emerged in different forms; it emanated from the limited capacity of the evaluation approaches and methodologies to capture the cultural nuances that influence the outcomes of development interventions (Stern et al. 2019). Furthermore, evaluators also had a poor understanding of the culture that informs the context in which interventions are being implemented, hence the need for evaluators to be culturally competent given the ubiquitousness of various cultures across the world (SenGupta, Hopson & Thompson-Robinson 2004). In addition, there was also the inherent realisation that evaluations do not take place in a vacuum; they take place within cultural, political, economic and social contexts defined by the humans living in those communities. The context is also shaped by ethnicity, race, language and power dimensions that influence the outcomes of development interventions. Understanding these factors is regarded as critical in the sense that the key role of evaluation is to determine the worthiness, merit or value of an intervention (Scriven 1991). Passing judgement on the worthiness, merit or value of interventions largely depends on understanding the context in which the programme was implemented and issues of inequality exist within this context, thereby influencing programme results. In sub-Saharan Africa, equitable evaluation in the form of culturally sensitive evaluation was propelled by the fact that most of the evaluators working in the Global South were not from the continent and were not familiar with the cultures and social context of the continent (Dighe 2023). Cultural competence is defined at its most basic level as reflecting an awareness and appreciation of cultural group differences and an ability to communicate effectively across cultural groups (Sue 1998). Furthermore, SenGupta et al. also highlighted that ‘The evaluator also needs to be cognizant of not losing track of the value systems because too much focus is placed on the means to derive the value judgment’ (SenGupta et al. 2004, p. 7). It is critical to highlight that cultural competence has been Elusive equitable development? 4 further developed to produce new variations termed culturally responsive evaluation and the recent Equitable Evaluation Framework (EEF) (Dean- Coffey & Cone 2023). These further developments show that addressing the issue of equity is paramount for evaluators. Hence there is the continuous development of approaches that help evaluators to understand the communities they are working in, thereby enabling them to make a value judgement of the worthiness or merit of the interventions under evaluation. As evaluators, we are detached from the reality of poverty, power imbalances and oppression. It seems evaluators have limited epistemological curiosity and a certain conviviality with the object of knowledge under study. This absence of critical discussions on equity issues in our evaluation practice and the evaluation reports highlights this. Evaluators should be able to translate their acquired experiences and use them in their quest to transform the evaluation and produce an equitable society. We have hinged evaluation practice on the tree of objectivity; however, in this volume, we disagree with the objectivity approach. In addition, we disagree with the notion that evaluation is value-neutral – it is value-laden and our values, culture and personal beliefs inform the judgement we make on the performance of interventions. Evaluators should be cognisant of the prevalent oppression. As evaluators, we need to ask ourselves why is it that inequality and oppression are not topical in our practice. Have we perfected the evaluation language to make social inequality inconspicuous? This book takes a slightly different approach. We do not view an evaluation as the only point where issues to do with equity, culture, values, context and associated components are addressed. We are arguing that evaluation, in most cases, occurs at the end of the programme (most of the evaluations conducted in Africa are mainly mid-term or end-line evaluations); hence, evaluation has limited capacity and role to deliver an equitable and just society. We are arguing that for equitable evaluation to occur, the programme or intervention must adopt an equity lens from programme funding, conceptualisation, design, implementation and monitoring. We are advocating for equitable development given the notion that evaluation is a tool that helps decision-makers make the right decisions. In this chapter, we are advocating for broadening the equity lens to include funding decision-making, programme conceptualisation, design and implementation, and evaluation. This chapter provides a critical analysis of the EEF and cultural competence in evaluation. The Equitable Evaluation Framework The Equitable Evaluation Initiative (EEI) put forward the EEF as a practice and a set of principles that are intended to inform evaluation work regardless of the approaches or methods used (EEF) (Dean-Coffey & Cone 2023). Chapter 1 5 The  EEI was initially sponsored by several philanthropic organisations, including the WK Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. These organisations recognised the need for a more equitable approach to evaluation that addresses systemic biases and inequities The EEI involved collaboration among a diverse group of stakeholders, including evaluators, foundation leaders, nonprofit professionals and community advocates. The EEF, as a result, emerged in response to a growing recognition within the philanthropic sector of the limitations of traditional evaluation approaches in addressing equity issues. The sponsors and participants of the initiative recognised the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive framework that could accurately assess the impact of programmes and initiatives on diverse communities. The framework acknowledges that the efforts towards equitable evaluation will take time particularly because this requires an entire paradigm shift as the framework challenges evaluation’s assumptions and conceptualisations of knowledge, evidence and truth. There is an effort to challenge the unquestioned orthodoxies (i.e. deeply held beliefs that impede the advancement of the principles) in evaluation to advance equitable evaluation principles. There are six areas of orthodoxy that are viewed as contentious, as they are understood and experienced differently by each stakeholder type in the philanthropic ecosystem. The first area relates to the quality criteria such as objectivity, rigour and credibility of evidence; the second area relates to conceptualisations, decision-making and perceptions; the third area relates to resources including money, time and people; the fourth area relates to relationships and trust; the fifth area relates to roles and expectations and the last area relates to productivity and accountability (EEF 2023). According to Dean-Coffey & Cone (2023), the EEF is committed to three key principles. The first principle is that ‘evaluation and evaluative work should be in service of equity’, this means that the framework asserts that at the centre of the evaluation practice should be efforts to advance progress towards equity. The second principle is that ‘evaluative work should be designed and implemented commensurate with the values underlying equity work’, meaning that it should be multi-culturally respectful and responsive, and aim towards participant ownership. The third principle is that (EEF 2023): [E]valuative work can and should answer critical questions about the Ways in which historical and structural decisions have contributed to the condition to be addressed; Effect of a strategy on different populations, on the underlying systemic drivers of inequity, and; Ways in which cultural context is tangled up in both the structural conditions and the change initiative itself. (p. 3) Drawing on principles of diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as insights from fields such as critical race theory and decolonial studies, the EEF was Elusive equitable development? 6 developed through a collaborative and iterative process (EEI 2023). It sought to challenge conventional evaluation practices and prioritise the voices and experiences of historically marginalised groups. The EEF also highlights a set of mindsets (i.e. an established set of [mental] attitudes to be shifted [toward),] tensions [(i.e.] inherent [strains] to be named, navigated and normalised) and sticking points ([i.e.] obstacles or barriers to be moved through, over, under, or around). [These] mindsets, tensions and sticking points are said to provide support in [challenging] the orthodoxies’ in the evaluation as they make it possible to have dialogue, reflexion and realignment (EEF 2023). The framework promotes the need for evaluators, commissioners and evaluation users to think reflectively and reflexively about the norms within the practice that have guided the practice without questioning the fact that the foundations of this work stem from white American and European men. This framework argues for the need to bring into consciousness the philosophical frameworks that have guided the practice and challenge their incompatibility with the philanthropic sector’s development work. While this framework is critical to the shift towards an equitable evaluation practice, it continues to reflect a single perspective, which is that of predominantly white-owned philanthropic foundations based in the Global North and is void of the voice of those practitioners, philanthropists and communities of the Global South, including those from Africa. Critique of the Equitable Evaluation Framework Although the framework is plausible, it has a few limitations that limit its impact on transforming the evaluation space. Firstly, the framework is too focused on the evaluators’ actions and the evaluation process. Lessons from evaluation practice show that evaluators have a limited role in deciding and shaping the scope, approach and methodology of an evaluation; hence, even if they put an equity-focused lens, the evaluation commissioners might reject their contribution. Secondly, an evaluation has a limited capacity to trigger systemic change that is needed to achieve equitable development. The approach to development in the Global South, including in Africa, is encapsulated by the following key stakeholders, the programme funder, the designer, the implementer, the evaluator and the targeted community. In most cases, these stakeholders come from different organisations and have different perspectives on how to achieve equitable evaluation, hence the need for a framework that examines equity broadly from programme funding to evaluation. Thirdly, the EEF also misses the crucial point that what brings equity is not evaluation but the intervention itself. Evaluation plays a Chapter 1 7 complementary role in bringing equity. For equitable development to be achieved, interventions need to focus on empowering the worst-off groups and ensuring that interventions address behavioural change, complex social processes and attitudes among the worst-off groups. Such empowerment cannot be achieved at the evaluation level but through holistically looking at the development process. We argue that EEF principles should be applied to the thought process of the funder, intervention designer, implementer, the targeted community and the evaluator. Fourthly, EEF is arguing for epistemological change, this is plausible; however, there is a need to go further and move evaluators from a mere superfluous understanding of context and history to a point where there is an in-depth understanding of history, culture, context and how they affect the intervention outcomes and trigger other unintended consequences. In most evaluations, the evaluation questions are too abstract and they are not framed around contextual factors. It is necessary to have a comprehension of the contextual factors which necessitate comprehending not only linguistic differences but also differences in knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. An intervention is implemented in a specific context shaped by the community’s culture and context. Fifthly, central to achieving an equitable and just society in Africa, there is a need to decolonise the development space. Hopson et al. highlighted that the political nature of knowledge, commissioning of evaluations and selection of evaluators is entrenched in white privilege – this extends to how interventions are designed and the assumptions that are made in the theories of change (Hopson, Kirkhart & Bledsoe 2012). The key argument is that if these issues are entrenched in white privilege, does this white privilege understand the cultural, socio-economic context and indigenous knowledge systems that are in Africa? Do evaluators who knowingly and unknowingly carry white privilege understand the cause of inequities in the Global South, including in Africa, and can they? We are arguing that the EEF does not place decolonisation at the centre of programme conceptualisation, evaluation epistemologies, programme design, commission of evaluation and selection of evaluators. Without decolonisation, the EEF can only make a limited dent in achieving an equitable and just society. The final critique is that the EEF framework is more suitable for contexts where no intersections of inequalities derive from historical deprivations, cultural inequalities and power asymmetries. The Global South, particularly the African continent, is affected by these multidimensions of inequalities that are fuelled by several factors hence there is a need for the framework to venture into how the principles stated can be used to provide an insight into how the outcomes of the programme have been affected by these multitudes of inequalities. Elusive equitable development? 8 Can cultural competence promote equitable development? As stated earlier, cultural competence emerged from the realisation that evaluators work in different contexts with varying cultures and values hence the need for them to be competent enough to understand the cultures and values. The American Evaluation Association (AEA) describes cultural competence as an ethical imperative and essential for ensuring the validity of evaluation findings (AEA 2011a, AEA 2011b). The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide a broader framework for embedding cultural competencies as ‘[…] a set of congruent behaviours, attitudes and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals and enable effective work in cross-cultural situations’ (CDC 2014, p. 2). The argument for cultural competence is that evaluators need to have the requisite competencies including understanding the socio- cultural experiences of people, ‘national origin, race, social class, religious and spiritual beliefs, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status and physical or mental disabilities’ (SenGupta et al. 2004). The major critique of cultural competence in evaluation is that it perpetuates Global North hegemony on evaluation practice and does so in two ways. Firstly, there is a raging debate on the dominance of Global North evaluators on the African continent and Global South in general, what cultural competence does is perpetuate the Global North hegemony on evaluation by capacitating the evaluators from the North through training them in Global South cultures. This limits opportunities for Global South evaluators, particularly African evaluators in the case of this book. Secondly, it also entrenches the ‘superiority’ of Global North evaluation skills at the expense of in-depth contextual knowledge and the evaluation skills of the Global South evaluators. Thirdly, cultural competence fails to acknowledge and position the need for decolonisation as encapsulated in approaches such as the Made in Africa Evaluation. Decolonisation is much broader and calls for a paradigm shift in how evaluations are conducted and managed in Africa. Furthermore, several evaluators and scholars in the Global South argue that cultural competence needs to encompass evaluators’ contribution to deconstructing the many centuries of African dominance by Western and European epistemological paradigms (Chilisa 2015; Chirau & Ramasobana 2022; Frehiwot 2022). How to promote equitable evaluation This book has suggestions on how to achieve equitable development with evaluation playing a critical role. After our critiques of the EEF and cultural Chapter 1 9 competence, it is important to draw attention to specific issues that are crucial for understanding how equitable evaluation should be incorporated within the context of development practice. It is critical to understand that our suggestions are not prescriptive and require a holistic examination and integration into the development sector for them to yield the desired results of an equitable and just society. We are raising five critical factors that we believe can help the development space achieve equitable development – equitable evaluation. These factors include the history, culture and context of the targeted community, using an equitable lens in programme design, equitable programme implementation and decolonised evaluation epistemologies. These factors are described here. Inequities are rooted in history and context There is a need for acknowledgement by programme funders, designers, implementers and evaluators that the current development challenges in the Global South, and in Africa specifically, are rooted in the checkered history of the slave trade, racism and deprivation. There is minimal consideration of Africa’s history when programmes are designed, implemented and evaluated – this tends to sanitise or ignore the impact of colonial history and the role played by the West on the deprivation of most African people. Bamberger and Segone summarised this situation by categorising it as the ‘naturalization of inequity’ explained as ‘When inequity is perceived as a natural phenomenon (the so-called “naturalization of inequity”), societies develop theoretical, political and ideological resistances to identifying and fighting inequity as a priority’ (Bamberger & Segone 2011, p. 6). This has resulted in the acceptance and treatment of inequalities in Africa as a natural state of affairs. Furthermore, the affected communities have no power or resources to change their circumstances, which has led to the resignation that the decision-making power of their development rests with the government and funders of interventions, most of whom are from the Global North. Currently, programmes are not designed holistically, instead, they consist of single-issue interventions that fail to address development challenges comprehensively. The implication is that programme designs only focus on the prevailing conditions without critically examining the circumstances that shaped the deprivation experienced by the targeted communities, addressing symptoms instead of the root causes of the deprivation. Evaluations of such programmes adopt a programme-oriented evaluation approach, which enhances decision-making and expands existing programmes; however, this approach often limits understanding of the social and historical community context and the exogenous factors affecting programme outcomes. The evaluation usually helps the Elusive equitable development? 10 stakeholders focus on how the initial idea can be improved and how well it is working now. While favourable, this approach has the limitation of being too simplistic and overly straightforward, as it fails to capture the complexity of the influence of historical and contextual factors on the programme. The key argument here is that history and social identity affect life experiences and development outcomes. It becomes imperative for the design of interventions and evaluations to understand the path that led the targeted communities to be where they are. Questions such as what has happened to the community? What is the impact of past deprivations? How can the design of the programme and evaluation contribute to better development outcomes? Equity starts at programme conceptualisation The key challenge from current approaches to equitable, equity-focused, culturally sensitive and inclusive evaluation is that their focus is on the evaluation process, not the actual programme. In this chapter, we argue that equitable evaluation should be central to the programme conceptualisation and design. The volume recognises that evaluation on its own comes late in the programme or project cycle; hence, it has limited influence on addressing the various forms of inequalities in the targeted community. We also argue that given the challenges of evaluation evidence use in Africa, the limited role of the evaluator in decision making and the inherent practice where evaluations are expected to fulfil the accountability function – it becomes difficult for evaluations to bring in an equitable change in society. We are also arguing that if issues of equity are not factored into the programme conceptualisation and design then equity- focused evaluators will try to fit square pegs in round holes. Furthermore, the terms of reference will likely not reflect the need to promote equity during evaluation. Equitable programme design An equitable programme design contributes to achieving equitable development by ensuring that the programme is inherently focused and aware of the existing inequities within the communities it is being implemented. The argument is that often, development programmes in the Global South, including in Africa, are funded by Global North organisations that then drive programme design, while implementation becomes the onus of the funded governments. Alternatively, through the internalisation of the Global North development agenda, funded governments design programmes of interest to funders, as a direct result of the power asymmetries between the two regions. Furthermore, there should be realisation that we do not live in a culturally and Chapter 1 11 contextually homogenous global village hence the need at the programme design level to examine context and other factors that have the potential to affect the programme. The key to the programme design is for it to do no harm or prevent the perpetuation of inequality within communities. The argument is that if the programme assumes an equity lens then the implementation will be equity-focused, leading to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) focused on gathering information that helps programme implementers and designers understand how their programmes are addressing inequalities in the communities. Equitable programme implementation and monitoring Our collective experience and evidence have shown that evaluators are often expected to introduce and adopt specific approaches during the evaluation; however, the approaches or principles were never thought about at the programme design, implementation and monitoring level. For example, currently, there is a push for decolonisation and transforming evaluations; however, unless these issues have been incorporated in the planning, implementation and monitoring phases of the programme, then it becomes difficult to introduce decolonisation and transformation at the evaluation phase. We are arguing that for a realistic and meaningful equitable evaluation; there is a need to plan for it at the programme funding and design level and implement it during programme implementation. Furthermore, issues of equity should be monitored throughout programme implementation. Several studies have shown that including an equity lens during the programme implementation and monitoring phases increases the ability of the programme implementers to understand the inequities and address them appropriately. Ultimately influencing the direction of the programme evaluation. Decolonisation and equitable evaluation The current debate in evaluation and the development sector in the Global South is that of decolonisation. Evaluation is rooted in the significant historical power inequalities between the Global North and Global South. In Africa, decolonisation is encapsulated in the Made in Africa Evaluation approach. ‘Decolonizing evaluation means locating it within indigenous cultural specificities, preferences and practices’ (Hopson et al. 2012): In evaluation, colonization manifests itself in determinations of merit or worth that are defined from a non-Indigenous – often geographically and culturally distant – perspective, and applied to Indigenous persons and programmes without regard to local culture and values. (p. 62) Elusive equitable development? 12 Under decolonisation, the key questions are centred on the following: Who determines what is valid or not in an evaluation? Whose epistemology takes precedence, that of the funder or the targeted community? How are power asymmetries dealt with at the evaluation level? Whose values and worldviews are used to pass judgement on the results of the intervention? Conclusion We are urging actors in the development space to focus on approaches that address inequities in the Global South at the broad development scale level, instead of a narrow focus on evaluation alone. Equitable evaluation should lead to broad equitable development and hence should be integrated into the development programme cycle. Evaluators should also look beyond cultural competencies and position evaluation as a tool that can unravel systemic inequities and bring solutions. 13 How to cite: Mapitsa, CB 2024, ‘Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone’, in S Masvaure, T Chirau, T Fish, S Mkhize & C Morkel (eds.), Evaluation as a mechanism to foster an equitable society in the Global South, Evaluation: African Perspectives, vol. 2, AOSIS Books, Cape Town, pp. 13–24. https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.02 Introduction There are two fundamental approaches to evaluation, with contestations manifesting in the way they are implemented. The first, which I will call ‘programme-oriented evaluation’, is a category into which both utilisation- focused evaluation and theory-based evaluation fall. These approaches broadly begin with a premise that the starting point for an evaluation should be the programme as it is, which includes ownership by the implementing organisation, adopting the logic and view of the world that the programme has. While this does not mean an evaluator should not bring wider experience to critique the programme design or the logic of the programme, a significant expectation of an evaluator is to first see and understand the programme and its implementing organisation as it sees itself. This has many advantages, including the immediate usefulness of the programme documentation, which often forms the basis of evaluation data, as well as ease of use for the organisation to adapt to recommendations of an evaluation that are likely to be useful and useable for the organisation. Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa School of Governance, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Chapter 2 https//doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK465.02� Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone 14 In this broad category, utilisation-focused evaluation is one of the most widespread in practice, presumably because it is appealing to both commissioners and evaluators for its instrumental usefulness and the ease it brings to reaching a common understanding of the purpose of the programme and the evaluation. The second category, which I will call ‘principles-oriented evaluation’, and which would include equity-focused evaluation, feminist evaluation and development evaluation, begins with a premise that evaluation should first and foremost serve goals of development effectiveness, good governance and justice and that an evaluator’s job is to be able to locate a programme within this wider context. This does not mean the evaluator should not also seek to understand and acknowledge the views of the implementing organisation and the locale of the programme, but they are secondary to the ways in which developmental goals are being served. Among the many approaches that fit within this category, equity-focused evaluation is particularly important at the moment, given the central role inequality is currently playing in the world’s developmental trajectory. Rampant inequality is seen as one of the key distinguishing features of ‘late capitalism’, and those who align themselves with this category of evaluations believe that this context is critical for understanding contemporary development programmes. Equity-focused evaluation, and utilisation-focused evaluation share many foundational values around how evaluation ought to improve governance and development. However, they are premised on fundamentally different theories of change for how evaluation is supposed to work. This chapter will problematise these differences and illustrate the ways in which these two approaches can, in fact, work at cross-purposes. Furthermore, it will consider the potential and limitations both approaches may have for evaluation to reduce inequality in Africa. To discuss these issues, it is important to consider the relationship between evaluation and inequality in three different ways. The first is the most instrumental. Development programming often has the aim to address inequality, and evaluation systems need to be equipped to do this, through equity-responsive approaches, disaggregated data, participatory methods and other components that allow evaluation systems to do this well. The second is linked to the purpose of evaluation system design. Evaluation systems are built to serve specific purposes, usually with a deliberate use- focus in mind. The use is often linked to building institutional capability and allowing governments to achieve their development goals. The ways in which equality is embedded within these developmental ‘theories of change’ inform the extent to which the evaluation system can be designed to respond. Finally, there is inequality that characterises the systems of international development, which are contextual features of evaluation Chapter 2 15 systems, but which sit largely outside of their control. It is to this form of inequality – the most critical from the perspective of the scope and scale of poverty – that Made in Africa Evaluation (MAE) systems have been built to respond. This chapter will argue that evaluation systems that do not serve the instrumental use of their organisational context but are also equipped to historicise, contextualise and broadly consider the drivers of governance and development may be most responsive to the current challenges of inequality in Africa. Background There is widespread agreement that inequality is one of the greatest development challenges of our time. Levels of inequality are higher than they have been at almost any time in history, with the richest 1% of the global population owning nearly half of the world’s wealth (Gradín, Leibbrandt & Tarp 2021). There are a number of other trends in inequality that make it of particular interest to evaluators. While development discourse once focused nearly exclusively on poverty, over the last half- century, many people around the world have been lifted out of poverty, yet inequality has remained unchanged or even deepened (Besley & Burgess 2003). Many economists believe shifting inequality is even more effective for reducing poverty than increasing growth (Lakner et al. 2022). Moreover, inequality brings forth entrenched relationships of power and control. Evaluators, who are trained to identify mechanisms for change, are particularly interested in this aspect (Mertens & Wilson 2018). In addition to this, Africa is uniquely affected by global inequality. This is true for a variety of reasons including the history of colonialism and its continuing social, political and economic impacts, the history of the slave trade and continued racism, and a capitalist system that undervalues raw materials and discounts the environmental and social costs of resource extraction (Naidoo & General 2010). Africa has the highest gap between the average incomes of the top 10% of the population and the bottom 50% (Chancel et al. 2022). Furthermore, despite several noteworthy developmental gains, nearly 30% of Africans live in extreme poverty (below $2 per day), which is nearly 10 times the global average (Aikins & Du Toit Mclachlan 2022). Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that one of the evaluation’s core values lies in its use (Johnson et al. 2009). This is its key distinguishing feature from pure academic research and is the foundation of a belief that evaluation can contribute to improved programme performance, strengthened institutions and more positive development outcomes. While there may be discussion and debate about what strategies best encourage use, which users should be prioritised, or what forms of use are the most valuable, the foundational importance of use is uncontested. Africa’s inequality cannot be solved by evaluation systems alone 16 Finally, there is an acknowledgement that evaluation systems are nascent, but growing across Africa, where democratic reforms have generated a demand for accountability, and evaluation is seen as one tool that can build a case around public sector performance both for electorates and the donors which still play an important role in public sector financing (Abrahams 2015). Their growth, however, is constrained on both the demand side, where the value of evaluation has not always been adequately demonstrated, and commitment to transparency is uneven, as well as on the supply side, where evaluation is often a recent introduction to higher education programmes (Cloete 2009). There has been considerable growth in both evaluation demand and supply over the last three decades, with an expansion of the number of countries with national evaluation policies and systems, as well as a growth in the number of countries with Voluntary Organisations of Professional Evaluators (VOPES) (Basheka & Byamugisha 2015). Universities are also scaling up offerings in the field of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to try and meet demand (Basheka, Lubega & Baguma 2016). However, there have also been significant hurdles to this growth, given the context of evaluation as an emergent profession, the complexity and fragility of many bureaucratic systems, and a lack of adequate resourcing at various levels (Engela & Ajam 2010). Because evaluation has expanded from its historical roots, of a neutral measurement of effectiveness, to be a more engaged tool for understanding change in context, it has also been pulled in many directions. With a broad spectrum of purposes, from an auditing-adjacent accountability role to a supportive learning function, one of the key dilemmas of evaluation system architects in Africa has been figuring out what a fit-for-purpose evaluation system looks like, in the context of Africa (Naidoo & General 2010). A widespread critique of M&E practice in Africa is that it is overwhelmingly compliance-driven and is associated with punitive donor-driven accountability requirements. The proactive building of country-owned evaluation systems is seen as a response to this, but there have been many barriers to evaluation being a tool for learning within the public sector, some of which are discussed by Dlakavu in Part 1 of Equitable Evaluation. Another step in this direction has been the MAE approach, which has been a primarily practitioner-led way of problematising tools and approaches that do not adequately reflect an African context (Chilisa