Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-gnk9b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T12:39:39.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeing Through the Logical Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Daniel E. Martinez  and
David J. Cooper
Daniel E. Martinez*
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting and Control, HEC Paris, 1 Rue de la Liberation, 78351 Jouy en Josas, France
David J. Cooper
Affiliation:
School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada Edinburgh University Business School, 29 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9JS, UK
*
martinez@hec.fr
Get access

Abstract

In this study, we examine the key management and scientific traditions that inform the logical framework, a project planning and evaluation tool that is central to how many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) manage their projects and provide accounts to funders. Through an analysis of USAID reports from the 1960s and 1970s, interviews with the logical framework’s developers, and a close reading of seminal texts, we identify how systems theory, management by objectives, and scientific theory informed how USAID problematized its project planning and evaluation practices and how they came to be inscribed into the logical framework as a way to address such perceived problems. We argue that these traditions are important for understanding a particular strand of managerialization that informs international development NGOs, and, more generally, for understanding how funding agencies “see” through the logical framework.

Keywords

Logical frameworkManagerialismStateNon-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 1239 - 1253
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 3–18.10.1332/204080513X661554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?. World Development, 66(C), 707–718.10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. (2011). Empire of humanity: A history of humanitarianism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beer, S. (1959). Cybernetic and management. London: The English University Press.Google Scholar
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed..Google Scholar
Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Brown, E., & Caughlin, K. (2009). Donors, ideologues, and bureaucrats: Government objectives and the performance of the nonprofit sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(1), 99–114.10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00467.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2015). Exploring how the balanced scorecard engages and unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1236–1262.10.1111/1911-3846.12105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwastiak, M. (1999). Accounting and the cold war: The transformation of waste into riches. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(6), 747–771.10.1006/cpac.1998.0276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwastiak, M. (2001). Taming the untamable: Planning, programming and budgeting and the normalization of war. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(6), 501–519.10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00010-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwastiak, M. (2006). Rationality, performance measures and representations of reality: Planning, programming and budgeting and the Vietnam War. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(1), 29–55.10.1016/j.cpa.2004.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, P. (1995). A poverty-oriented cost-benefit approach to the analysis of development projects. World Development, 23(4), 577–592.10.1016/0305-750X(94)00151-NCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbeil, R. (1986). Logic on logic models. Evaluation newsletter. Ottawa: Office of the Comptroller General of Canada.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drucker, P. (1954). The principles of management. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 84–114.10.1177/0899764002311004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.10.1016/0305-750X(96)00019-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esman, M., & Montgomery, J. (1969). Systems approaches to technical cooperation: The role of development administration. Public Administration Review, 29, 507–539.10.2307/973472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “Development”, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fernando, R. (2015). The neutrality and formality of conflict: Strategies, transformation and sights of the logical framework in Sarvodaya. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Free, C., & Qu, S. Q. (2011). The use of graphics in promoting management ideas. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 7(2), 158–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, N. (2010). Beyond the logframe: Using systems concepts in evaluation. Tokyo: Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development.Google Scholar
Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-oriented development evaluation. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 17–28.10.1002/1099-162X(200002)20:1<17::AID-PAD89>3.0.CO;2-53.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better AND costs less. Report of the National Performance Review. Retrieved June 8, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384294.pdf.Google Scholar
Granger, C. H. (1964). The hierarchy of objectives. Harvard Business Review, 42(3), 63–74.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 307–336.10.1007/s11266-012-9339-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M., Millo, Y., & Barman, E. (2015). Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 907–934.10.1111/joms.12146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1978). The poverty of management control philosophy. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 450–461.10.2307/257536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrones, J. (1964). Forward. In Mesarovic, M. D. & Hrones, J. (Eds.), Views on general systems story: Proceedings of the second systems symposium at the case institute of technology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hummelbrunner, R. (2010). Beyond logframe: Critique, variations and alternatives. In Fujita, N. (Ed.), Beyond the logframe: Using systems concepts in evaluation. Tokyo: Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development.Google Scholar
Hvenmark, J. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 223–247.10.2753/ATP1084-1806350203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvenmark, J. (2015). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2833–2859.10.1007/s11266-015-9605-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (Eds.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203413845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1964). Systems theory and management. Management Science, 10(2), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. P., Roberts, S. M., & Fröhling, O. (2011). Managerialism in motion: Lessons from Oaxaca. Journal of Latin American Studies, 43(4), 633–662.10.1017/S0022216X11001052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.10.1108/sl.2001.26129cab.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.Google Scholar
Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Krause, M. (2010). Accounting for state intervention: The social histories of “beneficiaries”. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), 533–547.10.1007/s11133-010-9165-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, M. (2014). The good project: Humanitarian relief NGOs and the fragmentation of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226131535.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Li, T. M. (2008). Beyond “the state” and failed schemes. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 383–394.10.1525/aa.2005.107.3.383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 587–608.10.2307/3003600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2017). Assembling international development: Accountability and the disarticulation of a social movement. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 63, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2019). Assembling performance measurement through engagement. Accounting, Organizations and Society. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2019.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65–72.10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2012). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 167–193.10.1007/s11266-012-9306-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (2007). Mediating instruments and making markets: Capital budgeting, science and the economy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 701–734.10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.10.1080/03085149000000001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neesham, C., McCormick, L., & Greenwood, M. (2017). When paradigms meet: Interacting perspectives on evaluation in the non-profit sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(2), 192–219.10.1111/faam.12121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, L., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257–292.10.2307/2393853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, O., Guthrie, J., & Humphrey, C. (Eds.). (1998). Global warning! Debating international developments in new public financial management. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199268481.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2012). Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings, graphic visualisations and sociomateriality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 565–586.10.1016/j.aos.2012.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. M., Jones, J. P. III, & Fröhling, O. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research framework. World Development, 33(11), 1845–1864.10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondinelli, D. A. (1993). Development projects as policy experiments: An adapted approach to development administration (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenberg. (1983). Antecedents. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Rostow, W. W. (1960/1971). The stages of growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rottenburg, R. (2009). Far-fetched facts: A parable of development aid. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262182645.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T. (2009). Strategic project management made simple: Practical tools for leaders and teams. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1997/1945). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Solem, R. R. (1987). The logical framework approach to project design, review and evaluation in AID: Genesis Impact problems and opportunities. A.I.D. Working paper No. 99. Centre for Development Information & Evaluation. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. (1903/1993). The principles of scientific management. London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
Townley, B., Cooper, D., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1045.10.1177/01708406030247003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuner, H. D. (1976). Program evaluation in aid: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).Google Scholar
Wallace, T., Bornstein, L., & Chapman, J. (2006). The aid chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.Google Scholar
Wallace, T., Crowther, S., & Shepherd, A. (1997). Standardising development: Influences on UK NGOs’ policies and procedures. London: World View Publishing.Google Scholar
Wallroth, C. (1968). An analysis of means-end structures. Acta Sociologica, 11(1–2), 110–118.10.1177/000169936801100108CrossRefGoogle Scholar