Recent developments in the aid landscape have raised concerns about the politicization of Official Development Assistance. Finland’s current government has been accused of leveraging ODA funding to pressure Southern partner countries into adopting specific policies, a move critics argue undermines genuine partnerships. Meanwhile, the freeze on USAID funding for developing countries by Trump raises questions about the future of international development cooperation.
These developments serve as a stark reminder that much remains to be done to address power imbalances and this what precisely Shift the Power aims to achieve. At the 2016 Global Summit in Johannesburg where the #shifthepower was first minted, the focus was on philanthropy, but the larger framing was always about power.1
Consequently, there has been a call for a systematic process to subject every aspect of development cooperation to the scrutiny of this concept. In a recently published issue paper (link), I highlighted that among the many facets of development work in need of baptism in the therapeutic waters of Shift the Power, MEL emerges as one of the areas that needs to be immersed fully.
At its core, the etymology of the word “evaluation” highlights its overwhelming focus on value. MEL revolves around assessing the worth of results achieved. Digging deeper, this value is inherently tied to resources, invested to create a chain of outcomes. Ultimately, it all circles back to one critical factor, funding. As Sarah Lister (2000) and others have opined, funding operates as a highly sought-after commodity in the current transactional “marketplace” that is the aid ecosystem, far outweighing other resources in terms of influence and leverage like social capital, local assets and knowledge that local southern partners bring to the table.
This criticality of funding creates a power imbalance, granting those who control financial resources a significant monopoly over decision-making and agenda-setting.2 As such, MEL processes, while designed to neutrally assess the value of change, are surreptitiously girded by the invisible hand of power. Far from being a purely objective or neutral exercise, MEL processes can reflect or reinforce the subtle priorities of those who control resources.
MEL practices typically involve evaluating the design, implementation, and outcomes of programs to ensure accountability, foster learning, and drive improvement. However, the fundamental question remains: accountability and learning for whom? In most setups, accountability mechanisms are asymmetrical, directed toward the actors contributing the largest share of funding, typically the donor, often a northern partner or intermediary organization. Traditionally, the focus has been on meeting donor expectations, frequently sidelining local voices and priorities.
Recalling my earlier career experiences in northern Ghana, one cannot also not unsee the tendency for MEL exercises to resemble paternalistic accountability systems. This analogy highlights a potential power dynamic where recipients of aid are viewed as dependents subject to external judgement, rewards, or punishments, like how parents raise children, rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour.
Around the mid-2010s, I worked in a consortium comprising two international partners—one serving as the technical and financial lead, and two local organizations. Each time a monitoring team arrived from headquarters, the consortium would be gripped by fear and anxiety. It wasn’t just about the visit itself but the looming consequences of any slips they might uncover and the ‘punitive’ measures that would inevitably follow. This ‘monitoring of terror’ raises concerns about disempowerment of certain voices and actors and the need to reframe MEL to foster more equitable and empowering relationships.
The functionality of MEL extends to partnership building and program development, yet these processes often expose a striking lack of reciprocity. Southern partners are typically subjected to rigorous scrutiny, including audits, due diligence processes, and other forms of assessments, before being “accepted” as “partners.” The agreements handed to them often resemble contracts, reducing them to the role of contractors rather than equal partners. They are often subject to periodic appraisals and assessments, mechanisms that are defended as necessary safeguards against fraud, ensuring value for money and program effectiveness.
I have always questioned the rationale behind rushing into programming before relationship building—it feels akin to putting the cart before the horse. These measures, intended to promote transparency and accountability, may inadvertently foster an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust, further entrenching the power imbalance between donors and recipients. Seen from a different perspective, this tendency can be likened to the “white gaze”—a viewpoint that perceives others through a lens of “deficit”, even when there are genuine concerns about strengthening their capabilities.
The science behind current MEL approaches also exposes some vulnerability to power play. Current practices most often originate from global north epistemic communities, leaving little room for the full expression indigenous knowledge systems. This epistemic injustice not only reinforces traditional power hierarchies but also silences the active participation and narratives of marginalized and local communities. The opportunity for them to tell their own authentic stories and narratives becomes lost.
The urgency of shifting power in development cooperation, especially in MEL, is crucial for creating an inclusive and equitable space where all voices are valued equally. it’s time to confront a pressing question: why hasn’t this transformation happened yet? What are we waiting for?
Gervin Chanase, International Development Consultant & Doctoral Member of Bamberg Graduate School of Sciences, Germany.
[1] ” Shift the Power Global Summit, accessed January 26, 2025, https://cpsummit.ngo/.
[2] Sarah Lister, Power in Partnership? An Analysis of an NGO’s Relationships with Its Partners (Lontoo: Overseas Development Institute, 2000).