Editing Aid effectiveness (section)

==== Challenges for measurement ====
It must be borne in mind that such econometric studies face many problems. One challenge for assessing the effectiveness of aid is that aid is intended to serve a variety of purposes: some of it is aimed primarily at poverty alleviation, some at economic growth, and some at other objectives such as better governance or reduction of social inequalities. Often it is not very clear what objectives are foremost, making it hard to measure results against intentions.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Barder|first=Owen|date=2009-04-21|title=What is Poverty Reduction?|url=http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1421599|journal=CGD Working Papers|access-date=2010-06-02}}</ref> Roodman (2007), for instance, discovered that the results of seven previous econometric studies – including the very influential one by Burnside and Dollar (1997, 2000) – could not survive defining key terms in other plausible ways.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Roodman|first=David|year=2007|title=The Anarchy of Numbers: Aid, Development and Cross-Country Empirics|journal=The World Bank Economic Review|volume=21|issue=2|pages=255–277|doi=10.1093/wber/lhm004|hdl-access=free|s2cid=14359188|hdl=10.1093/wber/lhm004}}</ref> Moreover, different objectives have different implications for the time-scale in which results should be sought.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Clemens MA|display-authors=etal|date=2011|title=Counting Chickens when they Hatch: Timing and the Effects of Aid on Growth|journal=The Economic Journal|volume=122|issue=561|pages=590–617|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02482.x|doi-access=free}}</ref> Varying sectors and modalities of aid have different effects, as do the contextual factors in recipient countries.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Petrikova|first=Ivica|date=2015|title=Aid for food security: does it work?|url=https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/ws/files/3106941/Petrikova_2015_IJDI.pdf|journal=International Journal of Development Issues|volume=14|pages=41–59|doi=10.1108/IJDI-07-2014-0058}}</ref> However, increasingly sophisticated analyses have made progress in accounting for these complicated effects.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />

Econometric studies frequently show more pessimistic results than might be expected from the accumulation of successes reported by donor and implementing agencies in their projects and programs. Paul Mosley termed this the '''micro-macro paradox''' and offered three potential explanations: inaccurate measurement, fungibility, and "backwash" or negative side-effects of component aid projects.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mosley|first=Paul|url=https://archive.org/details/foreignaiditsdef0000mosl|title=Foreign Aid: Its Defense and Reform|publisher=University Press of Kentucky|year=1987|isbn=978-0-8131-1608-2|quote=Paul Mosley.|access-date=December 7, 2009|url-access=registration}}</ref> The micro-macro paradox has also been attributed to inadequate assessment practices. For example, conventional assessment techniques often over-emphasize inputs and outputs without taking sufficient account of societal impacts. The shortcomings of prevalent assessment practices have led to a gradual international trend towards more rigorous methods of impact assessment.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Faust|first=Jörg|year=2009|title=Reliable evidence of impact|url=http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/084417/index.en.shtml|url-status=dead|journal=Development and Cooperation|volume=36|issue=1|pages=14–17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100227005515/http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/084417/index.en.shtml|archive-date=2010-02-27}}</ref>