Principles and methods to advance value for money

Abstract

Value for money poses the question, “What is good resource use?” It is often answered with a narrow economic analysis that does not adequately address what diverse people value. We suggest new principles and methods that may help evaluators answer the question better. First, we define value for money, which sits at the intersection of evaluation and economics. Next, we make the case for a holistic assessment of value for money that evaluators can conduct with tools they already have, like rubrics. We introduce three principles that further align value for money with evaluation: value depends on the credibility of estimates; things do not have value, people place value on things; and people value the same things differently. Together, they suggest evaluators should arrive at multiple, possibly conflicting conclusions that represent diverse value perspectives. We demonstrate how this may be done using a value-for-money rubric to improve resource allocation for impact.