L'idée s'est répandue que les évaluations d'impact rigoureuses seraient une nouveauté et que l'on viendrait de découvrir que la microfinance n'est pas la solution miracle contre la pauvreté. Cependant, l'analyse d'un corpus de 154 études montre qu'il s'agit d'une question ancienne qui n'a jamais été consensuelle. Cette analyse révèle l'essor que connaissent actuellement les approche évaluation quantitatives et académiques, au détriment d'approches plus opérationnelles.
Microfinance was designed as a development tool, but remains firmly anchored in the market economy. Its hybrid nature makes it unique among aid's instruments: microfinance benefits from subsidies, fiscal and regulatory support, while maintaining relative independence from governments and donors. To analyze its singular governance, we examine the interactions between its actors: both public and private as well commercial and non profit. This interplay is particularly oriented towards the definition of standards, codes, good practices, charters, labels, audit procedures, performance assessments, and other criteria aimed at regulating microfinance operations. Our purpose is to demonstrate that, beyond their technical specifications, norms that prescribe or evaluate MFIs' actions conceal different perceptions of what microfinance is, and what it should be. By studying the conventions used to supervise the financial, and subsequently, the social dimensions of this globalized field, this thesis deciphers the structures of authority that govern it. ; En fournissant des services financiers aux pauvres et aux exclus du système bancaire traditionnel, la microfinance remplit une mission sociale et de développement tout en étant ancrée dans le secteur marchand. Cette ambivalence lui confère un statut atypique parmi les instruments de l'aide au développement. Elle bénéficie ainsi de soutiens fiscaux, financiers et réglementaires, tout en gardant une autonomie relative à l'égard des États et des bailleurs de fonds. Pour éclairer ce mode singulier de gouvernance, ont été examinées les interactions entre des acteurs publics et privés, à buts lucratifs et non lucratifs. Celles-ci portent notamment sur la définition de standards, codes de conduite, bonnes pratiques, chartes, labels, procédures d'audit, mesures de performance et autres critères visant à encadrer l'activité de ce secteur. L'objectif consistait à démontrer qu'au-delà de leurs spécificités techniques, les normes qui prescrivent ou évaluent l'action des IMF constituent le support de conceptions distinctes de ce qu'est et de ce que doit être la microfinance. Au travers de l'étude des référentiels qui sont venus encadrer la dimension financière, puis sociale, de ce champ mondialisé, cette thèse explicite ainsi les structures d'autorité qui l'organisent.
Microfinance was designed as a development tool, but remains firmly anchored in the market economy. Its hybrid nature makes it unique among aid's instruments: microfinance benefits from subsidies, fiscal and regulatory support, while maintaining relative independence from governments and donors. To analyze its singular governance, we examine the interactions between its actors: both public and private as well commercial and non profit. This interplay is particularly oriented towards the definition of standards, codes, good practices, charters, labels, audit procedures, performance assessments, and other criteria aimed at regulating microfinance operations. Our purpose is to demonstrate that, beyond their technical specifications, norms that prescribe or evaluate MFIs' actions conceal different perceptions of what microfinance is, and what it should be. By studying the conventions used to supervise the financial, and subsequently, the social dimensions of this globalized field, this thesis deciphers the structures of authority that govern it. ; En fournissant des services financiers aux pauvres et aux exclus du système bancaire traditionnel, la microfinance remplit une mission sociale et de développement tout en étant ancrée dans le secteur marchand. Cette ambivalence lui confère un statut atypique parmi les instruments de l'aide au développement. Elle bénéficie ainsi de soutiens fiscaux, financiers et réglementaires, tout en gardant une autonomie relative à l'égard des États et des bailleurs de fonds. Pour éclairer ce mode singulier de gouvernance, ont été examinées les interactions entre des acteurs publics et privés, à buts lucratifs et non lucratifs. Celles-ci portent notamment sur la définition de standards, codes de conduite, bonnes pratiques, chartes, labels, procédures d'audit, mesures de performance et autres critères visant à encadrer l'activité de ce secteur. L'objectif consistait à démontrer qu'au-delà de leurs spécificités techniques, les normes qui prescrivent ou évaluent l'action des IMF ...
Résumé Cet article de recherche en science politique analyse l'émergence de normes d'évaluation en microfinance. Il montre que malgré son hétérogénéité, ce secteur est influencé par des critères de mesures communs, qui ont avant tout été financiers, induisant un risque de dérive de la microfinance par rapport à ses fonctions de développement. Toutefois, de nouveaux enjeux favorisent l'émergence de normes sociales, qui portent sur des aspects divers, reflétant des conceptions différentes de ce qu'est et doit être la microfinance.
In October 2019, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer jointly won the 51st Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel "for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty." But what is the exact scope of their experimental method, known as randomized control trials (RCTs)? Which sorts of questions are RCTs able to address and which do they fail to answer? The first of its kind, Randomized Control Trials in theField of Development: A Critical Perspective provides answers to these questions, explaining how RCTs work, what they can achieve, why they sometimes fail, how they can be improved and why other methods are both useful and necessary. Bringing together leading specialists in the field from a range ofbackgrounds and disciplines (economics, econometrics, mathematics, statistics, political economy, socioeconomics, anthropology, philosophy, global health, epidemiology, and medicine), it presents a full and coherent picture of the main strengths and weaknesses of RCTs in the field of development. Looking beyond the epistemological, political, and ethical differences underlying many of the disagreements surrounding RCTs, it explores the implementation of RCTs on the ground, outside of theirideal theoretical conditions and reveals some unsuspected uses and effects, their disruptive potential, but also their political uses. The contributions uncover the implicit worldview that many RCTs draw on and disseminate, and probe the gap between the method's narrow scope and its success, while alsoproposing improvements and alternatives.Without disputing the contribution of RCTs to scientific knowledge, Randomized Control Trials in the Field of Development warns against the potential dangers of their excessive use, arguing that the best use for RCTs is not necessarily that which immediately springs to mind. Written in plain language, this book offers experts and laypeople alike a unique opportunity to come to an informed and reasoned judgement on RCTs and what they can bring to development.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In October 2019, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer jointly won the 51st Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel "for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty." But what is the exact scope of their experimental method, known as randomized control trials (RCTs)? Which sorts of questions are RCTs able to address and which do they fail to answer? This book provides answers to these questions, explaining how RCTs work, what they can achieve, why they sometimes fail, how they can be improved and why other methods are both useful and necessary. Chapters contributed by leading specialists in the field present a full and coherent picture of the main strengths and weaknesses of RCTs in the field of development. Looking beyond the epistemological, political, and ethical differences underlying many of the disagreements surrounding RCTs, it explores the implementation of RCTs on the ground, outside of their ideal theoretical conditions and reveals some unsuspected uses and effects, their disruptive potential, but also their political uses. The contributions uncover the implicit worldview that many RCTs draw on and disseminate, and probe the gap between the method's narrow scope and its success, while also proposing improvements and alternatives. This book warns against the potential dangers of their excessive use, arguing that the best use for RCTs is not necessarily that which immediately springs to mind, and offering opportunity to come to an informed and reasoned judgement on RCTs and what they can bring to development.
Depuis deux décennies, les débats académiques vont croissant quant à la validité et à l'utilité des évaluations par assignation aléatoire dans le champ du développement. Cet article s'appuie notamment sur la parution récente par les auteurs d'un ouvrage de synthèse croisant les analyses des principaux protagonistes de cette controverse scientifique. Il souligne les principales lignes de force qui partagent tenants et détracteurs de la méthode expérimentale : divergences épistémologiques et méthodologiques, mais aussi sur la signification même du développement et la responsabilité éthique des chercheurs à l'égard des personnes qu'ils étudient. Classification JEL : A14, D04, C83, C93, O10
International audience ; Randomized control trials (RCTs) have a narrow scope, restricted to basic intervention schemes. Experimental designs also display specific biases and political uses when implemented in the real world. Despite these limitations, the method has been advertised as the gold standard to evaluate development policies. This article adopts a political economy approach to explore this paradox. It argues that the success of RCTs is driven mainly by a new scientific business model based on a mix of simplicity and mathematical rigour, media and donor appeal, and academic and financial returns. This in turn meets current interests and preferences in the academic world and the donor community.
International audience ; Randomized control trials (RCTs) have a narrow scope, restricted to basic intervention schemes. Experimental designs also display specific biases and political uses when implemented in the real world. Despite these limitations, the method has been advertised as the gold standard to evaluate development policies. This article adopts a political economy approach to explore this paradox. It argues that the success of RCTs is driven mainly by a new scientific business model based on a mix of simplicity and mathematical rigour, media and donor appeal, and academic and financial returns. This in turn meets current interests and preferences in the academic world and the donor community.
International audience ; Randomized control trials (RCTs) have a narrow scope, restricted to basic intervention schemes. Experimental designs also display specific biases and political uses when implemented in the real world. Despite these limitations, the method has been advertised as the gold standard to evaluate development policies. This article adopts a political economy approach to explore this paradox. It argues that the success of RCTs is driven mainly by a new scientific business model based on a mix of simplicity and mathematical rigour, media and donor appeal, and academic and financial returns. This in turn meets current interests and preferences in the academic world and the donor community.
International audience ; Randomized control trials (RCTs) have a narrow scope, restricted to basic intervention schemes. Experimental designs also display specific biases and political uses when implemented in the real world. Despite these limitations, the method has been advertised as the gold standard to evaluate development policies. This article adopts a political economy approach to explore this paradox. It argues that the success of RCTs is driven mainly by a new scientific business model based on a mix of simplicity and mathematical rigour, media and donor appeal, and academic and financial returns. This in turn meets current interests and preferences in the academic world and the donor community.
This last decade has seen the emergence of a new field of research in development economics: randomised control trials. This paper explores the contrast between the (many) limitations and (verynarrow) real scope of these methods and their success in sheer number and media coverage. Our analysis suggests that the paradox is due to a particular economic and political mix driven by the innovative strategies used by this new school's researchers and by specific interests and preferences in the academic world and the donor community. ; La dernière décennie a vu l'émergence d'un nouveau champ de recherche en économie du développement : les méthodes expérimentales d'évaluation d'impacts par assignation aléatoire. Cetarticle explore le contraste entre d'une part les limites (nombreuses) et la circonscription (très étroite)du champ réel d'application de ces méthodes et d'autre part leur succès, attesté à la fois par leur nombre et leur forte médiatisation. L'analyse suggère que ce contraste est le fruit d'une conjonctionéconomique et politique particulière, émanant de stratégies novatrices de la part des chercheurs decette nouvelle école, et d'intérêts et de préférences spécifiques provenant à la fois du monde académique et de la communauté des donateurs.
