Theories of Change in International Development: Communication, Learning, or Accountability?

Critically analysing assumptions is a much needed endeavour in international development policy and practice: existing management tools rarely encourage critical thinking and there are considerable political, organisational and bureaucratic constraints to the promotion of learning throughout the sector.

The Theory of Change approach – an increasingly popular management tool and discourse in development – hopes to change some of that. This approach explicitly aims to challenge and change implicit assumptions in world views and
programme interventions in the lives of others, yet little is known about the extent to which it really does so. This paper provides a much needed analysis of how Theories of Change are used in the day-to-day practice of an international development organisation, The Asia Foundation.

Creating Theories of Change was often found to be a helpful process by programme staff, since it provided a greater freedom to explain and analyse programme interventions. However, the introduction of the approach also had some troubling effects, for example, by creating top-down accounts ofchange which spoke more to donor interests than to the ground realities of people affected by these interventions. Ultimately, this paper argues that while a Theory of Change approach can create space for critical reflection, this requires a much broader commitment to learning from
individuals, organisations, and the development sector itself.

Valters concludes with six key findings: 

1. A Theory of Change approach can create space for critical reflection, but there is a danger that this is an illusory process 

2. Personalities matter—they change whether a Theory of Change is seen as a tool of communication, learning, or a method of securing funding, or some combination of these. 

3. Power relations between donors and implementers in the international development industry discourage critical reflection and therefore constrain Theory of Change approaches. 

4. A Theory of Change approach needs to focus on process rather than product, uncertainty rather than results, iterative development of hypotheses rather than static theories, and learning rather than accountability. 

5. Politically expedient Theories of Change may be useful, but are unlikely to encourage critical reflection 

6. If the aim is to encourage critical reflection and learning, the use of Theories of Change should be supported only so long as they remain useful in that respect