• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Effectiveness of sector-wide approaches in fragile contexts

Effectiveness of sector-wide approaches in fragile contexts

Helpdesk Report
  • Brian Lucas
November 2013

Question

What reviews have been undertaken assessing the effectiveness of working through a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) in fragile contexts, specifically focusing on health and education SWAps and decentralised contexts?

Summary

There is no consistently strong evidence that sector-wide approaches (SWAps) have been effective at achieving development outcomes in fragile contexts. Available evidence is mixed, partly because of the uniqueness of each country’s context (Negin 2010, p. 5). SWAps are generally considered to be most appropriate in relatively stable low- and middle-income countries, with national political leadership and institutional capacity considered to be prerequisites (Pavanello & Darcy, 2008, pp. 17-18). However, there is some evidence that if given sufficient time, a mature SWAp can contribute to stabilisation and state-building processes (Boak & Ndaruhutse, 2011). Processes of decentralisation can either enhance or undermine state-building objectives depending on context (Boak & Ndaruhutse, 2011, pp. 9-10).

This report presents brief summaries of a selection of health and education sector reviews completed within the last four years, covering a range of fragile and conflict-affected states in Asia, the Pacific, and Africa.

The reviews of health and education SWAps included in this report consistently find that:

  • Evidence of the effectiveness of SWAps in achieving development outcomes is limited, and what evidence exists is mixed, partly due to differences in country context and problems of measurement and attribution.
  • SWAps can lead to improvements in aid harmonisation, in relationships among development actors, and in processes for coordinating and planning.
  • There is a significant risk of focusing too heavily on developing coordination and planning processes and not enough on development results.
  • SWAps can help build national capacities for financial management.
  • It is common for donor agencies to continue to fund projects in the same sector outside a SWAp rather than being fully committed to the SWAp.
  • SWAps do not reduce transaction costs for country governments, and in some cases transaction costs have been observed to increase.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Related Content

Engaging new governments on development priorities
Helpdesk Report
2019
Doing research in fragile contexts
Literature Review
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more