Delegation of Decision-Making

PI: Amy Harris, PhD Candidate

Coding Team: Camille Sasson
(Senior), Megan Knight (Junior),
Power to Foreign Aid Beneficiaries: Upandha Udalagama (Junior),
Karissa Shapard (Sophomore),
Measuring Donor Intention for Foreign Aid Contracts Dana Korssjoen (Freshman)
Cluster Analysis Dendogram:
Creating Categories of Allocated
Beneficiary Decision Making

Background: Preliminary Results from the Dataset (2013-2016) Cluster Analysis Dendogram

Foreign aid donors have professed support for integrating beneficiary decision-making Decision-Making Power Category Listed as the
Percent of Percent of Projects with Beneciary Involvement in
into their work based on its asserted ability to generate more effective and ethically Highest Level of Decision Making the Project
Projects Implementa3on
appropriate approaches to development. However, our current understanding of foreign Engages In
aid delivery is very top-down, with little discretion remaining for beneficiaries; and we None 21%
know little empirically about the extent to which donors actually delegate decision-making Beneciaries Involved in Project
89%
power to beneficiaries. This project develops the first dataset that empirically measures Inform 13% Implementa;on
donor-intended discretion on a large scale in a subfield where most research is case Consult 17%
study-based, and yields results that facilitate our ability to understand and study Beneciaries Not Involved in
beneficiary participation in aid work. Specic Ac;vi;es 36% 7%
Project Implementa;on
Research Question and Approach: Type of Ac;vity 12%
Sector of Ac;vity 1% Unknown 4%
To what extent does the US Agency for International
Percent of Projects with Evidence for the
Development (USAID) allocate decision-making power to Category Government is a
Government has RFP is Based on the
Decision-Making Recipient
aid beneficiaries through its bilateral development aid? Inform Beneciaries 37%
Project
Power During Governments
Beneciary
Implementa3on Na3onal Plans

We develop a dataset from USAID Request for Proposal Documents (RFPs) (which
Consult Beneciaries 48%
include unsigned versions of contracts). RFPs detail the donors intention for each Power over Specic Yes 79% 39% 41%
projects engagement of beneficiary decision-making project activities in the exact
language that appears in the later contract.
Ac;vi;es
49%
No 20% 60% 53% Break- point
between 0 and
1 HLDM
1 2 3 4 5
Methods: Clustering Projects into Categories These 2 clusters
To generate the categories of projects, we included the below variables, and used the are almost
identical
This project employs a document coding activity using a 2-person consensus model average clustering method. Results are robust when applying the nearest neighbor
to code RFP documents from USAID to generate results with increased validity and method and to using different configurations and weightings of the included variables.
replicability. Cluster 1 2 3 4 5
Variables to capture a holistic picture of donor allocated decision-making for beneficiaries: Number of Members 31 17 22 12 12
Consensus Model:
A Codebook establishes a framework for understanding each variable
Beneficiary decision-making scope Mechanism for allocating decision-making Financial Structure (dominant type) NA NA NA GU GU
Government decision-making power Beneficiary involvement in implementation
conceptually and a set of rules for measuring each variable
Decision-making during RFP development Among others
Highest Level Decision Making 0 and 1 2 3 3 4
2 Coders Independently Assign Coding Decisions for each RFP
Inform 67% 17% 41% 58% 41%
Coders meet to discuss each coding decision, focusing on mismatches in coding Descrip3on
Discrepancies are resolved and only finalized once both coders reach Cluster
*ordered by degree of decision-making
Consult 0 100% 60% 58% 67%
consensus. To be resolved, we require positive evidence to justify each Specific Activities 0 0 100% 100% 100%
coding decision, and discussion as to whether the evidence truly meets the
Low-to-zero levels of decision-making power delegated to beneciaries (none and
measurement approach set out in the codebook inform).


Type of Activity 0 0 0 0 100%
1 They never grant decision-making power to recipient governments. However half of them are Government is a Beneficiary 67% 94% 82% 83% 67%
Measurement of Key Variables: The most important variable for this research question designed around exis;ng na;onal plans.
is Beneficiary Decision-Making Scope. This variable requires finding language Government has Decision-Making Power 0 47% 54% 66% 50%
These projects have the lowest level of beneciary engagement in implementa;on.
explicitly stating that beneficiaries will have discretion over work plans, implementation,
during Implementation
reviews, and other activities, and identifying what kind of discretion and how much. Each These projects require the contractor to Consult with beneciaries about project RFP follows a national plan/goals 42% 41% 36% 50% 42%
category below receives a yes/no rating. ac;vi;es.
Grant umbrella structure 32% 41% 50% 83% 83%

Almost all of these projects include the government as a beneciary, but only half allow for
Decision-
3 decision-making for (consul;ng with) governments during implementa;on. Beneficiary decision making only through 6% 0% 27% 25% 17%
Descrip3on
Making (*these categories are based on an upside-down log Example Around 40% of these projects are designed to respond to exis;ng na;onal plans. grants structure
Category frame, the key strategic planning tool u3lized at USAID) Beneciaries are almost always included in implementa;on.
Beneficiaries involved in implementation 67% 94% 100% 100% 100%
None No Decision-Making Power
Contractor holds nancial planning These projects have a mid-level of decision-making power: beneciaries on all of
workshops for beneciaries
these projects can make decisions over specic ac;vity priori;es, design, and/or
Beneciaries are Informed: contractor informs Initial Conclusions
beneciaries of ac;vi;es, but does not seek selec;on.

Contractor publically announces

4

Inform beneciary response or reac;on. OCen beneciaries workshops on nancial planning. Over 80% of these projects include the government as a beneciary, and 2/3 of these projects give 1. USAID engages in substantively important delegation of delegation of decision-making to
can choose to opt-in or out as a result of this the government decision-making power (specic ac;vi;es, consulta;on, informing). beneficiaries via contracts, and at levels higher than anticipated.
informa;on 34% of contracts are designed around pre-exis;ng na;onal plans. 2. USAID is more likely to engage participants in implementation than decision-making.
Beneciaries are Consulted: contractor presents a set Contractor proposes workshops on All of these projects engage beneciaries in implementa;on. 3. Projects with higher levels of decision-making power use grant umbrella mechanisms as
nancial planning and asks
Consult of intended ac;vi;es to beneciaries and asks them one important vehicle for this delegation.
beneciaries how to improve or tweak These projects are very similar to those in Cluster 3 with the following excep;ons:
4. Decision-making is often delegated to recipient governments during contract
to provide input for changes the workshop

Decision Power Over Specic Ac;vi;es they Engage 5 These projects exclusively use grant umbrella structures, and implementation, and at times, only to the government. Governments also have power to set
Beneciaries are asked to come up Higher levels of government decision-making and more projects based on na;onal plans. priorities through national strategiesinfluence over RFP design.
In: contractor asks beneciaries to propose ideas for
Specific with an ac<vity to increase use of
ac;vi;es, priori;es, and target areas. The contractor These projects have the highest level of beneciary decision-making seen in the
Activities nancial management tools among
Lessons Learned from the Coding Team
then works with the beneciaries to hone and tweak individuals and businesses dataset beneciaries can make decisions about what types (or categories) of
these ideas for implementa;on
Beneciaries are asked to propose ac;vi;es they engage in.

1. Despite its quantity of projects and desire for greater standardization, the organization,
Type of Decision Power Over Type of Ac;vity Engaged In: types of ac<vi<es (ex: ac<vi<es to All of these projects also grant decision-making power over the specic ac;vi;es. content, and requirements are drastically different across RFPs.
Activity
increase use of nancial management
These projects use the grant umbrella structure, but few use them as the only means of 2. USAID consistently champions inclusivity (for women and people with disabilities), local
within one sector tools) within a given sector: Economic 2 delega;ng decision-making. capacity building, and sustainability across projects.
Growth
Beneciaries are asked to choose a They tend to consider the government as a beneciary and of those which do, half of them grant 3. We have become much more adept at picking out the relevant areas of the RFPs,
Decision Power over the Sector they Engage in: sector to work in (Economic Growth or the government decision-making power. Further, half of these projects are based on na;onal- interpreting them, and translating them into code.
Sector of 4. We have learned the importance of positive evidence for coding decisions and attention to
choice between mul;ple sectors the project is Conict Mi<ga<on) within the project level plans.
Activity goal of expanded opportuni<es for detail in preparing for consensus meetings.
working in All of these projects engage beneciaries in implementa;on.
urban livelihoods