文档介绍：该【Understanding success in micro‐enterprise development Dimensions and misconceptions 2021 Vien Chu 】是由【琪官】上传分享，文档一共【43】页，该文档可以免费在线阅读，需要了解更多关于【Understanding success in micro‐enterprise development Dimensions and misconceptions 2021 Vien Chu 】的内容，可以使用淘豆网的站内搜索功能，选择自己适合的文档，以下文字是截取该文章内的部分文字，如需要获得完整电子版，请下载此文档到您的设备，方便您编辑和打印。:.
Thismaybetheauthor’sversionofaworkthatwassubmitted/accepted
forpublicationinthefollowingsource:
Chu,Vien&Luke,Belinda
(2021)
Understandingsuccessinmicro-enterprisedevelopment:Dimensionsand
misconceptions.
PublicAdministrationandDevelopment(PAD),41(2),-78.
Thisfllewasdownloadedfrom:/
cConsultauthor(s)regardingcopyrightmatters
CreativeCommonsLicence,youmustassumethatre-useislimitedtopersonaluseand
-
mentisavailableunderaCreativeCommonsLicense(orotherspecifledlicense)thenrefer
totheLicencefordetailsofpermittedre--
thisworkinfringescopyrightpleaseprovidedetailsbyemailtoqut.******@
License:CreativeCommons:Attribution-
Notice:PleasenotethatthisdocumentmaynotbetheVersionofRecord
()(asSub-
mittedforpeerrevieworasAcceptedforpublicationafterpeerreview)can
beidentifledbyanabsenceofpublisherbrandingand/ortypesetappear-
,pleaserefertothepublishedsource.
/:.
UnderstandingsuccessinMED:Dimensionsandmisconceptions
Abstract
Thisarticleexaminesmicro-enterprisedevelopment(MED)programsofnon-
governmentorganisations(NGOs)intwodevelopingcountries,Bangladeshand
Indonesia,toexploreunderstandingsofsuccessfromtheperspectivesNGOmanagers
,and
’
publiclyavailabledocumentswasalsoundertakenandcomparedwithinterviewdata.
FindingsrevealNGOs’understandingsofsuccessattheorganisationallevel
,NGOs’interpretationsofsuccessat
theprogramlevelfocusedprimarilyonshort-termoutputsratherthanlong-term
outcomesandimpacts,withlimitedfollow-
misconceptionsregardingunderstandingsofsuccessfromaninternal(NGO)versus
externalperspective,andtheneedforlong-termmonitoringtounderstandhow
sustainableNGOs’programoutcomesactuallyare.
Keywords:
Micro-enterprisedevelopment,NGOs,success,sustainablepovertyalleviation
Impactstatement:
Bygaininganunderstandingof‘success’fromtheperspectivesofNGOsand
beneficiaries,thearticlehighlightsfundamentalconceptsandpotentialmisconceptions.
VaryinginterpretationsofwhatconstitutessuccessintheoryandNGOs’practices
underscorestheneedforlong-termoutcomesandimpactstobesupportedand
monitoredbydonorsandregulators.
1
:.
Povertyalleviationremainsanongoingchallenge(Agyemang,O’Dwyer,Unerman,&
Awumbila,2017;WorldBank,2015)
effortsofnon-governmentorganisations(NGOs)andotherstoaddresspoverty,the
WorldBank’s(2019)mostrecentestimatesnote10%oftheworld’spopulation(736
millionpeople)liveinextremepoverty(onlessthan$),andformanynations,
indeliveringaidprogramstoalleviatepoverty(Agyemangetal.,2017;Gamble&Beer,
2017;Gugerty,2008;Wellens&Jegers,2016).WhileNGOshaveexpandedintermsof
theirnumberandtheamountoffundstheyreceivefromdonors(Agyemangetal.,2017;
Connolly&Hyndman,2013),concernshavebeenraisedregardingthelackof
successfullong-termoutcomesfromNGOs’povertyalleviationprograms.
Whilearangeofaidprogramsexist,thosesuchasmicro-enterprisedevelopment
(MED)focusingonsustainable(long-term)povertyalleviation,offerthepotentialfor
long-termsolutions(Dali&Ayayi,2020;Fuller,Howard,&Cummings,2002;Jäger&
Rothe,2013;Kantor,2005;Peredo&Chrisman,2006).NGOsengaginginMEDaimto
helpthepoorestablishsmall(micro)businessesinordertogenerateincomeand
progressoutofpoverty(Bhatt,1997;Dali&Ayayi,2020;Lohmer,2008;Tinker,2000;
Virgil,2010),focusingspecificallyonlong-,
however,therehasbeenverylimitedprogressintermsofthepercentageofthepoor
liftedoutofpoverty(Edwards&Hulme,1996;Najam,1996;O'Dwyer&Unerman,
2010;Wellens&Jegers,2014).Further,suchprogramsareoftencriticisedfor
generatingonlyshort-termoutcomes,lackofbenefitsrealisedbythepoor(Hug&
2
:.
Jäger,2014;Stiles,2002),andweakcollaborationwithlocalcommunitiesandthe
privatesector(Islam&Morgan,2011;Medina-Muñoz&Medina-Muñoz,2020;Sam,
2007).LiteraturehighlightsNGOshavelegitimacybasedontheirmission(AbouAssi&
Trent,2016;Nicholls,2009;O’Leary,2017),yetconcernshavebeenraisedregarding
MEDNGOs’effectivenessincontributingtosustainable(long-term)povertyalleviation
(Gugerty,2008;Herman&Renz,2008;O’Leary,2017;Ossewaarde,Nijhof,&Heyse,
2008).However,thereislimitedresearchonNGOs’viewsofsustainablepoverty
alleviationandeffective(successful),this
studyseekstoaddressthisgapbyexaminingMEDprogramsintwodeveloping
countries,BangladeshandIndonesia,
withinMED??In
doingso,thisarticleaimstogaininsightsintowhyMEDhashadlimitedsuccess,and
howthismightbebetteraddressed.
Understandingof‘success’areexploredintermsofachievingNGOs’mission,butalsoas
anopen-endedconcept,fromtheperspectivesofNGOsandbeneficiaries,throughsemi-
structuredin-depthinterviewsinvolvingexecutivesfrom20NGOsand39beneficiaries,
andareviewofNGOs’
contributetotheoryandpracticeonpovertyalleviation,highlightingfundamental
successunderscoresthecomplexpathtopovertyalleviation,butalsotheneedforlong-
termoutcomesandimpactstobemonitoredandmanagedforsustainablepoverty
alleviationprogramsinpractice.
3
:.
Withinpovertyalleviationliterature,sustainabilityreferstolong-termandongoing
solutions(Bass,Reid,Satterthwaite,&Steele,2005),andisoftenintegratedwith
environmentalmanagement(),agoodgovernance
system,andstrongrelationshipsbetweenstakeholders(government,citizens,
businesses)addressingthecausesofpoverty(Bassetal.,2005;Eberly,2008;Lohmer,
2008;Medina-Muñoz&Medina-Muñoz,2020).NGOsengaginginMEDaimto
achievesustainablepovertyalleviationthroughhelpingthepoortoestablishsmall
(micro)businesses,asawayofprogressingoutofpoverty(Baur&Schmitz,2012;
Jäger&Rothe,2013).Thesemicrobusinessesareexpectedtobemaintainedortogrow
beyondthetimeframeofNGOs’support,providinganongoingsourceofincomeanda
pathwaytobuildassetsandwealth(Dali&Ayayi,2020;Lohmer,2008;Lombe&
Sherraden,2008).Assuch,financialsustainabilityofmicrobusinessesisanessential
foundationforsustainablepovertyalleviationthrougheconomicdevelopment
(Aworuwa,2004;Mustapa,Al-Mamun,&Ibrahim,2018;Strier,2010).
Inanorganisationalcontext,financialsustainabilityreferstolong-termbusiness
survival(Costanza&Patten,1995),theabilityofanorganisationtogeneratenecessary
revenuestocoverexpenses(Aschari-Lincoln&Jäger,2016;ManuelPedroRodríguez,
AndrésNavarro,MaríaDeseadaLópez,&LauraAlcaide,2018),andbeabletopay
debtsinthelong-term(Nyankomo&Aziakpono,2015).Inthecontextofmicro-
enterprises,similartosmallbusinessliterature,theirlong-termsurvival(orfinancial
sustainability)isreflectedthroughprofitable,self-fundingoperations,independentof
4
:.
ongoinggovernmentornon-government()assistance(Lohmer,2008;
Sheremenko,Escalante,&Florkowski,2017;Strier,2010).
However,promotionoffinancial‘sustainability’isoftenapredictionorexpectation,
whichcanonlybeassessed‘afterthefact’orintervention(Costanza&Patten,1995,p.
193).Similarly,whilethereisnocleardefinitionof‘long-term’,literaturehighlightsthe
typicallyshortlifespanofmicro-enterpriseswithahighfailurerateduringtheirinfancy
(McPherson,1996;Midgley,2008).Aworuwa(2004)commentsthatfouroutoffive
newmicro-(1998)foundthat50
percentofmicro-
findingshavebeennotedinSwaziland,Zimbabwe(McPherson,1992),Kenya(Sam,
2007),andBrazil(MarceloGodke&McCahery,2019).Thesmallerenterprisesare,the
lesslikelihoodofsurvival(MarceloGodke&McCahery,2019).Otherstudiesshow
beneficiarieslosetrustinNGOsandhavelittleincentivetoparticipateintheirMED
programs(Dixon&McGregor,2011;Islam&Morgan,2011).Thisissueraises
questionsregardingNGOs’successinfacilitatingsustainableoutcomesforthepoor,
suggestingthatmicro-enterprisesneedmoreeffectiveandcomprehensivesupportin
ordertosurviveandgrow(Mustapaetal.,2018).
Successcanbeconsideredintermsofachievingtheintendedoutcomesorexpected
performance(Sawhill&Williamson,2001;West&Ries,2018).Indicatorsforsuccess
includingoutputs,outcomes,andimpactshavebeenidentifiedanddiscussedinthe
literatureindifferentcontexts(Connolly&Hyndman,2013;Gamble&Beer,2017;Saj,
2013;Waweru&Spraakman,2012;Yang&Northcott,2019;Zyl&Claeyé,2019).
5
:.
EbrahimandRangan(2014)presentasimpleapproachinthecontextofpoverty
alleviation,suchthatoutputindicatorsfocusonimmediateresults(suchasnumberof
peopleassisted),outcomeindicatorsfocusonmediumandlong-termresults(.
increasedincome),andimpactindicatorsfocusontherootcausesofpoverty(suchas
improvementsinhumandevelopment).Collectively,thesedimensionsprovideabasis
toevaluatetheeffectivenessofNGOs’programs.
Inpractice,however,NGOshavebeencriticisedforreportingonquantityofoutputs
andshort-termoutcomes,whilelackingevaluationsoflong-termoutcomesandimpacts
(Connolly,Hyndman,&McConville,2013;Costa&GoulartdaSilva,2019;O’Leary,
2017;Saj,2013).Yet,assessmentsoflong-termoutcomesandimpactofNGOs’
programsremainschallenging,lackinguniformapproaches(Baur&Schmitz,2012;
Connolly&Hyndman,2017;Ebrahim&Rangan,2014;Gugerty,2008;Sonpar,
Pazzaglia,&Kornijenko,2010).NGOs’prioritiesoftenfocusonquantitativetargets
withinshortandpre-specifiedtimeframesprovidedbydonors;outputsratherthan
outcomesandimpacts(Connollyetal.,2013;Houlbrook,2011;Yang&Northcott,
2019;Zyl&Claeyé,2019).Thisissue,asnotedbyLall(2019),leadstothemission
measurementparadox,wherewhatisbeingmeasured(orinthiscaseassessedas
‘success’),doesnotreflecttheorganisation’smission.
Althoughdevelopmentsintheliteraturehighlighttheimportanceofreportingand
transparencytoenhancetheinformationenvironment(Burks,2015;Connolly&Kelly,
2020;Harris&Neely,2018;Yang&Northcott,2019),andexpressingthevaluesand
beliefsunderpinningNGOs’work(Hall&O'Dwyer,2017),comprehensivereporting
6
:.
onoutputs,,whilelimitedformsofreporting
continuetobeadopted,NGOs’successinalleviatingpovertyremainsunclear,raising
concernsregardingNGOs’legitimacy.
Legitimacyisimportantfororganisationstogainsupportandsecureaccesstoresources
(Suchman,1995),andisitselfaresourceinorganisations(Connolly&Kelly,2020;
Dowling&Pfeffer,1975;Luke,Barraket,&Eversole,2013),establishingcredibility
“ageneralisedperceptionorassumption
thattheactionsofanentityaredesirable,proper,orappropriate”,Suchman(1995,p.
574)referstolegitimacyasan“umbrellaevaluation”.Howeveracloserexaminationof
legitimacywithintheliteraturesuggeststhisevaluationmaytakeplaceatseveral
differentlevelsofanalysis(Maurer,1971).Suchmanpresentsthreemainformsof
legitimacy:moralbasedonintentions,pragmaticbasedonexchangeandinfluence,and
,someorganisatio