How Is the Effectiveness of Public Welfare Projects Evaluated Internationally? 

By Zhang Yimu, Guo Yidan, et al. 

What is M&E? 

Simply put, M&E refers to the monitoring and evaluation of public welfare and development projects (the two concepts differ, but for the sake of clarity they are combined here). 

• Monitoring (M) refers to establishing indicators of efficiency, effectiveness, and impact, setting up mechanisms for collecting relevant information, recording and analyzing the data, and using the findings for day-to-day supervision. 

• Evaluation (E) is the process of clarifying a project’s objectives—what change it intends to bring, what impact it aims to achieve—and ultimately assessing how well it has fulfilled these objectives and delivered impact. 

In this process, we examine questions such as: Was the project’s strategy effective? If not, why not? Were resources used efficiently? Is the approach sustainable? What does this model mean for different stakeholders? 

The main dimensions considered in M&E include: 

1. Relevance – Does the project align with the issue or need being addressed? 

2. Efficiency – Was the project delivered on time and cost-effectively? 

3. Effectiveness – To what extent did it achieve its stated goals? 

4. Impact – What were the project’s results (intended or unintended, positive or negative)? 

5. Sustainability – Will the benefits last after the intervention ends? 

Why is M&E necessary? 

(Here follows the Afghanistan case with the UN aid, illustrating inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption in aid delivery, and later additional cases in Chad, Kenya, and Lesotho showing how projects failed due to poor design or lack of supervision.) 

These failures highlight why rigorous monitoring and evaluation frameworks are essential: to prevent “white elephant projects,” misuse of funds, and culturally inappropriate interventions. 

A Brief History of M&E 

• 1967 – Albert Hirschman’s Development Projects Observed was the first public evaluation report of aid projects, marking the start of M&E. 

• 1970s – USAID introduced the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), systematizing M&E. Herb Tuner further developed a 4×4 matrix, linking goals, purposes, outputs, and inputs to measurable indicators. 

• 1980s–1990s – Evaluation expanded beyond economic indicators to include gender, environment, participation, and rights-based approaches. Participatory evaluation emerged, emphasizing the involvement of local beneficiaries in assessments. 

• 2000s – The UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provided shared international benchmarks, later replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, which continue to shape global M&E frameworks. 

How Does M&E Work in Practice? 

Standard M&E involves a structured, multi-step process, often lasting a year or more: 

1. Identify participants in M&E design, execution, and reporting. 

2. Define scope, purpose, intended use, audience, and budget. 

3. Formulate key evaluation questions. 

4. Select appropriate indicators. 

5. Determine data collection methods (e.g., literature review, surveys, interviews). 

6. Analyze and synthesize findings. 

7. Interpret results, provide feedback, and generate recommendations. 

8. Share findings with stakeholders to guide adjustments and future planning. 

Important aspects include: 

• Choosing clear, relevant, economic, adequate, and monitorable indicators. 

• Setting baseline levels and target outcomes. 

• Selecting appropriate data collection methods, often combining quantitative and qualitative tools (logical frameworks, performance indicators, focus groups, etc.). 

Limitations of M&E 

Despite its rigor, M&E is not foolproof. The Millennium Villages Project (MVP), launched under Jeffrey Sachs, illustrates the risks of flawed evaluation design (small sample sizes, poor baselines, biased comparisons). Initial reports overstated success, later corrected in The Lancet. 

Critics argue M&E can be manipulated to show desired results, while the process itself often struggles to influence actual project adjustments due to weak feedback loops. 

Broader Reflections 

Scholars like Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid, 2009) and Angus Deaton have criticized aid as structurally flawed, fostering dependency and corruption instead of sustainable development. They argue that aid itself has become part of the problem, not the solution. 

China’s state-led development model is sometimes cited as an alternative approach that may offer new lessons for international cooperation. 

As Moyo concluded: 

“The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second-best time is now.”