Why measure and for whose benefit? Addressing the challenges of measuring the contribution of volunteering for development in a multiple stakeholder environment

Putting Peace Back Into the Peace Corps: Restoring International Volunteering for Development as a Peacebuilding Modality

“…This shifted the focus of foreign aid from local need to geopolitical interests (Fleck & Kilby, 2010), exacerbating the influence of securitisation upon IVD (Muvingi, 2016; Uvin, 2002). IVD has increasingly been treated as if it is just another tool of foreign policy or service delivery, as illustrated by the prioritisation of donor and sending country’s concerns in measurement (Allum, 2017). With the “professionalisation” that accompanied neoliberal reforms, volunteers increasingly resemble the specialist development practitioners they were intended to differ from (Baillie Smith & Laurie, 2011; Georgeou, 2012; Hoffman, 1998).…”

“…This era often engaged in a “rhetorical repackaging” of development as axiomatically contributing to peace (Uvin, 2002). The evaluation practices of IVD reflected this, only measuring inputs of trained people and physical resources presuming they necessarily brought about development and peace (Allum, 2017). In reviewing and explicating the Development and Peacebuilding Nexus, Uvin (2002) identified a range of approaches that emerged in response to this, including aid conditionality, the post-conflict agenda, the “Do No Harm” approach, conflict prevention, human security, and the “global system reform” movement.…”

“…The Neoliberalisation and Securitisation of IVD Uvin (2002) observed that the field has a history of presuming that "development axiomatically reduces conflict," despite a lack of evidence that economic prosperity necessarily reduces violence and conflict. Believing that the primary obstacle for the prosperity of the global South was a lack of skilled people, IVCOs often operated as if the input of skilled volunteers was sufficient to achieve meaningful change (Allum, 2017). In response to the absence of impact evaluation, international development and IVD underwent a wave of reform in the 1990s as donors demanded proof of return on investment (Allum, 2017;Georgeou, 2012;Uvin, 2002).…”

“…Believing that the primary obstacle for the prosperity of the global South was a lack of skilled people, IVCOs often operated as if the input of skilled volunteers was sufficient to achieve meaningful change (Allum, 2017). In response to the absence of impact evaluation, international development and IVD underwent a wave of reform in the 1990s as donors demanded proof of return on investment (Allum, 2017;Georgeou, 2012;Uvin, 2002).…”

“…While these ideas have not been entirely neglected by IVCOs, monitoring and evaluation practices continue to emphasise inputs and immediate outcomes (Allum, 2017). A more fundamental change is necessary in how IVD is practiced.…”