This chapter explores current approaches and proposes preliminary options for measuring progress towards locally led development. It first discusses contextual issues such as a no “one-size-fits-all” approach to measurement frameworks and constraints related to definition, coverage, and data collection. It then presents current approaches to measurement such as applying evaluative frameworks for measurement across a range of contexts, establishing policy commitments to drive change, and embedding accountability for locally led development in partner agreements. The chapter presents a four layered approach for a shared measurement framework that practitioners can adopt and adapt when considering ways of measuring their progress towards locally led development co-operation.
Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation
Abstract
A robust measurement framework for locally led development enables members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to understand and track progress towards their commitments and ambitions on locally led development co‑operation. For external stakeholders – including local actors – it provides the basis for monitoring the performance of providers against their commitments, whilst creating space for local actor agency in monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL).
Approaches to comprehensively measure progress related to locally led development co-operation are in their infancy and primarily limited to the humanitarian sphere. These include the development of high-level targets, which draw primarily upon granular and qualitative approaches, notably the Measuring Localisation: Framework and Tools. Rather than focusing solely on direct access to funding, this focuses on a range of locally led development enablers: i) policy influence and advocacy, leadership, participation, and capacity; and ii) funding, co-ordination, complementary and partnership mechanisms (Piango and HAG, 2019[1]). Several civil society organisations (CSOs)1 have developed frameworks including the Localisation Performance Measurement Framework (NEAR, 2019[2]) and the UK Aid supported Emerging Benchmarks for Seven Dimensions of Localisation (Van Brabant and Patel, 2018[3]). The objective of these frameworks is to empirically ground measurement in specific country contexts (Barbelet et al., 2021[4]) and to understand how the agency of local actors is enabled.
Most DAC members are still in the process of fine-tuning their vision, and approaches for locally led development co-operation, and have not yet designed comprehensive measurement tools. The United States, Canada, and Australia are the exceptions and, based on their respective visions for locally led development co-operation and business models, have been experimenting with a mix of measurement modalities. These include both quantitative (volume of funding directly provided to local actors) and qualitative indicators (assessing the agency of partners and enabling systems), with targets (United States) or ratings against a spectrum of progress (Canada and Australia).
It is generally accepted that there is no one size fits all for measurement frameworks and several challenges arise in relation to definitions, coverage, and data collection. No single attempt would capture progress across all contexts, be sufficiently accurate, simple enough for all users, nor cover all locally led development co-operation enablers and outcomes. Indicators related to providing direct funding to local actors are under the public spotlight, with diverse perceptions on the scope and definition of who is a local actor (Adomako and Cohen, 2021[5]; Paxton and Lewis, 2024[6]). Further, the measurement of funding directed to local actors is hampered by the transparency of current reporting (Els and Carstensen, 2015[7]), given reporting gaps including capturing the quality of funding indirectly provided to local actors.2 There are no international databases collecting information on the amounts transferred to local organisations by international intermediaries, beyond outflows from multilateral organisations, and indicators related to direct access alone are not sufficient to determine whether an approach is locally led and would need to be accompanied by information on local partners' agency. Finally, measuring locally led development is challenged by data collection processes. Only a few institutions have business models that enable the processing of extensive and detailed information that would be relevant to measure progress towards locally led development without adding a heavy administrative burden on staff and partners.
Current approaches for measuring locally led development co-operation focus on: i) applying evaluative frameworks that measure locally led development across diverse contexts; ii) establishing policy commitments to drive system-wide change; and iii) embedding accountability for locally led development in partner agreements.
Applying evaluative frameworks that measure locally led development across a range of contexts
Partners have developed approaches to measure progress along a sliding scale or continuum. For example, Canada’s Evaluation Division has developed a pilot Localisation Analysis Framework, which is an evaluation tool designed to measure a programme’s alignment with locally led development across nine dimensions and to identify key barriers and enablers to programming with local organisations (GAC, 2023[8]). Key features include a focus on the relevance of local capacity strengthening support by donors, which assesses the ability of a programme to leverage and build on existing local capacities and strengths, moving away from a deficit model. It also centres local ownership and leadership across programme design, management, governance, monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning.3 Given the granularity of the information collected and the focus on agency, this framework has so far been used to inform evaluations, rather than to conduct regular monitoring. Other potential applications and uses are currently being explored. Within the context of efforts to localise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), a Localisation Marker has been developed as part of the Joint SDG Fund, an inter-agency pooled mechanism.4 This tool serves to identify joint initiatives that effectively prioritise localisation efforts, ensuring both policy coherence and transparent and accountable tracking of allocated financing for SDG localisation, and facilitating rigorous monitoring and reporting on the progress achieved in localising the SDGs. The Guidance is specifically designed to assist United Nations (UN) Country Teams in applying the Localisation Marker to the design, implementation, and accountability of joint programmes supported by the Joint SDG Fund.
Australia has established a locally led development continuum, to help the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) staff and implementing partners make informed decisions to define the intent and level of ambition in relation to locally led development at portfolio level when new programmes and phases are established, and to inform the monitoring of progress over time. The overall aim is to progress investments along the continuum over time taking into account the specific objectives of local actors, the context, capabilities of local and international partners, the scale of operations, choice of modalities, and management of risk safeguards.
The Continuum establishes a rubric with nine dimensions of local agency: i) ideation, planning, concept and design; ii) implementation and delivery approach; iii) decision making and responsibility; iv) resource distribution; v) partnership approach; vi) staff profile and procurement; vii) technical advisers; viii) monitoring, evaluation and learning approach and accountability for results; and ix) the role of intermediaries. Progress is measured along a continuum or sliding scale: emerging (local actors consulted); partial (local actors co-responsible); and advanced (local actors primarily responsible), with criteria identified for each level.
Source: DFAT (2024[9]), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.pdf.
Drawing upon existing indicators can reduce the administrative burden on funders and their partners. A central challenge facing the measurement of progress on locally led development is the potential additional administrative demands placed on DAC members and their partners, with limited existing organisational capacity for data collection and analysis. Some DAC members are responding to this challenge by developing measurement frameworks that utilise existing systems and draw on existing indicators. For example, Australia has recently finalised a Guidance Note on Locally Led Development to support the implementation of this commitment, which includes a menu of indicative indicators for use by staff and partners, some being mandatory as part of the overall Australia’s performance framework, and some optional to be adapted as needed (DFAT, 2024[9]).
Establishing policy commitments to drive system-wide change
Establishing targets can drive system-wide change. The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) measurement framework is the first publicly tested DAC member framework. It relies on two main targets (see Box 6.2) and includesmethods and indicators to measure progress on localisation5 with a view to gaining a comprehensive understanding of efforts towards supporting locally led development and nudging approaches across all channels of delivery. Data collection for both targets is managed internally.
25% of USAID funding obligated directly to local partners by the end of 2025. This target looks at Direct Local Funding (acquisition and assistance obligations given directly to local partners in a given fiscal year) and Direct South-South Funding (acquisition and assistance obligations given directly to developing country partners working in a third country in the Global South). It explicitly excludes partner government support, interagency agreements, personal services contracts, and agreements with public international organisations.
50% of USAID programming will place local communities in the lead by 2030. This target looks at all local actors, including partner governments. It measures the percentage of USAID funded activities in which local partners and/or local communities lead development efforts. Activities are considered as placing local communities in the lead if they implement at least two good practices in terms of direct local funding, creating effective local partnerships, recognising, and investing in local capacity, and engaging communities directly.
Source: USAID (2023[10]), Moving Toward a Model of Locally Led Development: Financial Year 2022 Localisation Progress Report, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY%202022%20Localization%20Progress%20Report-June-12-23_vFINAL_1.pdf.
Embedding accountability for locally led development in partner agreements
Rather than introducing corporate level indicators or targets, some members are piloting agreements with their partners. For example, Ireland’s Civil Society Programme team monitors, on an annual basis, locally led development benchmarks integrated in memoranda of understanding (MoU) signed with Irish civil society partners, which will form an important component of the mid-term review of the programme. These benchmarks include: accountability to affected populations, especially in the context of humanitarian programming; proportion of on-granting to local organisations (currently at 31% for the programme as a whole); provision of overhead costs for local partners; proportion of Global South leaders on programme boards; and narrative reporting on locally led development progress (against the partner’s locally led development policies). These are negotiated benchmarks put forward by the partners, and so offer an opportunity for a bottom-up approach. Such frameworks can enable members to closely examine their practices, to identify how and the extent to which they are enabling locally led development, particularly in relation to the fundamental goal of shifting power and supporting local agency. Some international intermediaries are also in the process of modifying their partnership modalities from within. For example, Terre des Hommes has recently adopted a Partnership and Localisation policy, in which they commit to include a fairer and more equitable share of funding in partner agreements with local partners and report back to the funding partners on this (Terre des hommes, 2024[11]).
Denmark has piloted working practices promoting collective accountability by requiring its Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to embed five elements of local leadership in their agreements with local partners. These elements, outlined in the NEAR principles within the Locally Led Development Performance Management Framework, focus on capacity-sharing, funding, advocacy, representation and equality. Additionally, headquarter staff engage directly with local partners at annual consultative meetings, beyond their intermediary NGOs. These country dialogues verify reports and establish trust-based relationships with local stakeholders. While some intermediary organisations (International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) from development provider countries) may fear losing control, when it comes to funding, the mandatory nature of requirements has been welcomed by Danish INGOs.
Source: NEAR (2019[2]), Localisation Performance Measurement Framework, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc4fd249698b02c7f3acfe9/t/6011621dba655709b8342a4c/1611751983166/LMPF+Final_2019.pdf.
Drawing upon the emerging DAC member good practices, the peer learning conceptual framing, and the peer learning findings, any approach to measuring progress towards locally led development co-operation must be multifaceted to address resources, level of agency, and systematic enablers and barriers (OECD, 2023[12]). In order to respect this ambition, being mindful of the diversity of context and the need to avoid adding administrative burden, a four-layer approach, mobilising existing international reporting might include approaches to measuring: i) the quantity and quality of funding flowing to local actors; ii) providers’ development co-operation effectiveness performance in given operating contexts; iii) actual and potential levels of local actor agency across development co‑operation building blocks; and iv) DAC member systemic enablers, including policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, financing and management systems (see Table 6.1).
Measuring the quantity and quality of funding to local actors: Mobilising OECD CRS reporting
The OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS)6 provides a comparable database of type of funding and channel of delivery mobilised by development co-operation providers. It can provide a proxy for funding made available to local actors and some indication of its quality based on two measures: channel codes – providing information on which local partners have access to funding – and assistance type codes – which can serve as a simplified proxy for the level of agency of the recipient. Both measures can be complemented with the programme-based approach marker, which measures the funding flows that meet requirements related to co-ordinated support and local leadership in development programmes. Utilising the CRS has several benefits. Firstly, it responds in part to one of the priorities voiced by local actors, regarding the request of transparency over the direction of funding and how this information can be accessed (Shift the Power Movement, 2024[13]). Secondly, it also avoids adding to administrative demands placed on members because it does not require additional reporting; it makes use of the CRS dataset, which has existed for years and will continue to be reported on, allowing for historical trend analysis and comparisons across donors and partner countries. Finally, this approach also has the merit of being relatively simple and replicable. It would allow the user to select a provider (and/or partner country if there is demand) and observe trends across each data category.
As with all approaches, there are also limitations in using the CRS. For example, CRS data only takes into account the first channel of delivery, which is not necessarily the end recipient. This means CRS data likely underestimates providers’ total support for locally led development by omitting locally led development support through international intermediaries.7 The accuracy of the collected data for quality depends on the quality of the reporting by DAC members, and depending on how it is reported and calculated, this approach would not be able to show if a funding flow is multi-year or not. Further, the timeliness of this dataset (published with a two‑year time lag – i.e., 2022 data are published in 2024) can be hard to reconcile and align with the approaches proposed below (OECD, 2024[14]). To fill this gap and provide a more accurate picture of DAC members’ locally led development performance, in particular for those with a centrally managed procurement, the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT) is planning to pilot several new approaches to capture data on sub-awards (pending approval from the Working Party).
Measuring development provider effectiveness performance in given operating contexts: Mobilising GPEDC monitoring
The monitoring exercise of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC)8 is a partner country-led multi-stakeholder exercise to promote collective accountability on the effectiveness of development co-operation. Data collected through the GPEDC’s monitoring exercise9 provide valuable contextual information for DAC members and other stakeholders. This includes the enabling and representation of a diversity of country level stakeholders in development efforts. Additionally, certain metrics shed light on the behaviour of providers concerning the different dimensions of agency, notably “engagement and dialogue for national development strategies” and “country-level partnership frameworks” (OECD, 2024[14]). Country-led dialogues are an opportunity to engage in multistakeholder and action-oriented discussions on the basis of the evidence gathered through the GPEDC monitoring exercise. Depending on the inclusivity of the process, these dialogues can be an opportunity for local actors to discuss DAC members’ behaviour concerning inclusive consultations, alignment and agency in decision-making; framing, design, delivery, learning and accountability (see Annex B). Mobilising GPEDC monitoring with a locally led lens could be a relevant source of information when agreeing on localisation ambitions in specific contexts.
Data generated in the GPEDC monitoring can also create opportunities for peer learning at the DAC and will inform rolling Peer Reviews of DAC members.
The use of the GPEDC also comes with limitations, including timing. The length of the monitoring process, including the timeliness of the different rounds or reporting and analysis, limits the possibilities for timely comparisons. However, this approach would still be able to provide a snapshot of the context and providers’ performance in a specific country at a specific time. The validity of this approach is also heavily dependent on the level of inclusivity of data collection and country dialogue. Yet, it provides evidence on the state of play of development effectiveness at the country level to assess progress on existing commitments closely linked to locally led development (OECD, 2024[14]). At the same time, timing is not necessarily a limitation, considering the advantages it provides to partner countries leading the process and the limited speed at which large donors can adapt their behaviour. A key risk is donors not participating (and therefore not creating the evidence base for improvement), or partner countries not succeeding in mobilising their constituencies.
Measuring the level of local actor agency in locally led development co-operation at programme level: Mobilising the local actor agency compass
Enabling locally led development co-operation means adjusting approaches at the programme level, even beyond direct core funding to local actors. Based on extensive consultations and on the working definition of locally led development co‑operation used for this peer learning,10 this means recognising and enabling local actor agency across critical dimensions of development co-operation (see Table 6.2). This can help unpack the assessment of progress towards enabling locally led development at programme level by questioning which local actors have agency and to what extent (using a spectrum approach). This structured reflection can in turn help identify barriers (external or internal) and concrete ways forward.
Source: OECD, (2024[14]), Measuring Progress Towards Locally Led Development Co-operation, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)27/en/pdf.
Enabling locally led development is a process of shifting agency dynamics in specific contexts (local and systemic). Applying a spectrum approach enables a more granular and operational understanding and identifies the actual/potential role of local actor agency as ranging from: omitted; consulted; co‑responsible; and primarily responsible (OECD, 2023[12]). Feedback on agency levels can be collected qualitatively during discussions with different local actors or quantitatively depending on DAC member preference.11
Mapping the current and potential role of diverse local actors across the development building blocks using the local agency compass. This can build understanding and indicate the extent to which DAC member approaches enable or constrain diverse local actor agency and highlight gaps in perspectives between current levels and roles, local actor preferences, and DAC member expectations. It can be used to assess where barriers or conflicting objectives exist, how the role of different local actors could evolve, and the advantages and implications for different local actors leading each of the building blocks (Figure 6.1).
Source: OECD (2024[14]), Measuring Progress Towards Locally Led Development Co-operation, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD92024)27/en/pdf.
Application of this framework will require adaptation to user needs and the context in which it is applied. This compass does not necessarily represent an ideal configuration of agency but should be context‑specific, recognising diverse perspectives within programmes. It can, however, serve as a guide for measurement, evaluation and learning frameworks andcollaborative reflection and learning approaches, specific to locally led development co-operation (King et al., 2023[15]). Practitioners are therefore encouraged to create space for the active involvement of local actors in shaping any application of the framework. Capturing perception‑based data of diverse local actors and comparing it with the perception of development co‑operation providers on the agency of diverse local actors, could also be integrated when utilising the compass in a specific context.
In 2023, the Korea Transport Institute (KOTI) conducted research to assess Korea's development co‑operation projects in the transportation sector. Building on the peer learning definition of locally led development co-operation, KOTI’s research analysed projects through the four dimensions of agency and four components of analysis specific to the sector namely: mobility, safety, viability, and eco-friendliness to gauge local influence and sustainability: i) mobility measures local influence on improving connectivity and transportation options; ii) safety assesses local input on traffic safety regulations and awareness; iii) viability evaluates local leadership in feasibility studies; and iv) eco-friendliness measures local contributions to carbon neutrality. Initial research concluded on the difficultly to evaluate projects against the dimensions of agency given the lack of related monitoring frameworks.
Addressing DAC member systemic enablers for locally led development
Policies, institutional arrangements, and management systems underpin all DAC members’ strategies and operations. Reviewing these systemic enablers (see Figure 6.2) is critical for identifying: i) opportunities for enabling locally led development co-operation; ii) potential quick wins; and iii) the need for more systemic change. According to preliminary findings from the DAC peer learning, key enablers to track could include those outlined in Table 6.3, which also shares indicative indicators.
This list of DAC member systematic enablers for tracking is not exhaustive. Instead, it provides an indication of potential levers and enablers that development co-operation providers can track to better support locally led development co-operation. The ability to implement these would vary based on the different business models and therefore Table 6.3 should be interpreted as a menu of options, from which DAC members and potentially other development co-operation providers can choose from and adapt as needed.
Note: The OECD, with financial support from the UN SDG Fund, has commissioned a research study (forthcoming) to investigate whether the DAC Untying Recommendation could, and should, encourage greater procurement by and from local organisations and businesses in developing partner countries as policy levers to advance their sustainable development and ownership, and, if so, how.
Source: OECD (2024[14]), Measuring progress towards locally led development co-operation, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)27/en/pdf.
References
[5] Adomako, M. and M. Cohen (2021), Funding the Localisation Agenda: Measuring Progress of United States Development and Humanitarian Assistance to Local Organisations, Oxfam International, https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Funding_The_Localization_Agenda_FINAL.pdf?_gl=1*v7zoil*_gcl_au*MTcwNjM5MjUxOC4xNzIwMTA1Njc5*_ga*MTg2MjYyNDA5MC4xNzIwMTA1Njc5*_ga_R58YETD6XK*MTcyMDEwNTY3OS4xLjAuMTcyMDEwNTY3OS4wLjAuNjE3MTMzMDI5*_fplc*bmFOd.
[4] Barbelet, V. et al. (2021), Interrogating the Evidence Base on Humanitarian Localisation: A Literature Study, https://odi.org/en/publications/interrogating-the-evidence-base-on-humanitarian-localisation-a-literature-study.
[9] DFAT (2024), DFAT Guidance Note: Locally Led Development, Department of Foreing Affaires and Trade, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/dfat-guidance-note-locally-led-development.pdf.
[7] Els, C. and N. Carstensen (2015), Funding of Local and National Humanitarian Actors, https://www.local2global.info/wp-content/uploads/l2gp_local_funding_final_250515.pdf.
[8] GAC (2023), “Evaluation of the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI), 2015-16 to 2020-21”, https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/audit-evaluation-verification/2022/cfli-fcil-report.aspx?lang=eng.
[15] King, M. et al. (2023), Understanding “Local” Decision-Making in Aid Interventions: the Decision Mapping Tool, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/political-economy/assets/the-decision-mapping-tool.pdf.
[2] NEAR (2019), Localisation Performance Measurement Framework, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc4fd249698b02c7f3acfe9/t/6011621dba655709b8342a4c/1611751983166/LMPF+Final_2019.pdf.
[14] OECD (2024), Measuring Progress Towards Locally Led Development Co-operation, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2024)27/en/pdf.
[12] OECD (2023), Framing DAC Member Approaches to Enabling Locally Led Development, OECD ONE Members and Partners Database, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)47/en/pdf.
[6] Paxton, S. and H. Lewis (2024), USAID’s Meaasurement Approah is Undermining its Progress on Localisation and its Goal to Diversify its Local Partner Base, Publish What You Fund, https://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/2024/06/usaids-measurement-approach-is-undermining-its-progress-on-localization-and-its-goal-to-diversify-its-local-partner-base/.
[1] Piango and HAG (2019), Measuring Localisation: Framework and Tools, https://humanitarianadvisorygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Measuring-Localisation-Framework-and-Tools-Final_2019.pdf.
[13] Shift the Power Movement (2024), Too Southern To Be Funded: Open Letter to the OECD DAC and an Urgent Call to End Discriminatory Funding Against Global South CSOs, https://shiftthepower.org/toosoutherntobefunded/ (accessed on 20 June 2024).
[11] Terre des hommes (2024), Partnership and Localisation Policy, https://locallink.childhub.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Localisation_Policy_Tdh2024v3.pdf.
[10] USAID (2023), Moving Toward a Model of Locally Led Development: Financial Year 2022 Localisation Progress Report, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY%202022%20Localization%20Progress%20Report-June-12-23_vFINAL_1.pdf.
[3] Van Brabant, K. and S. Patel (2018), Localisation in Practice: Emerging Indicators and Practical Recommendations, https://www.preventionweb.net/files/59895_localisationinpracticefullreportv4.pdf.
← 1. Also the Global Mentoring Initiative (https://www.preventionweb.net/files/59895_localisationinpracticefullreportv4.pdf), Pando Localisation Learning System developed by Keystone Accountability and Root Change (https://www.rootchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pando-LLS-White-Paper_Full_Final-2020.pdf), and the Community-Led Assessment Tool developed by the Movement for Community Led Development (https://mcld.org/download-the-scoping-tool/).
← 2. DAC members report on the first channel of delivery in the OECD Creditor Reporting System and so only funding provided directly to local organisations is captured.
← 3. The pilot application of the framework in two programme evaluations (WVL, CFLI) identified three major barriers that hindered programming with local organisations: i) institutional factors, including requirements that are difficult for local organisations to meet in the context of GAC’s risk appetite; ii) adverse local contexts in which international assistance programmes are implemented can create challenges that hinder local organisations from receiving donor funding (such as national legislation and government hostility toward GAC priorities); and iii) limited (GAC) human resources and capacity to support local partners without previous experience working with GAC or other donors.
← 4. For further information on the Joint SDG fund, see: https://www.jointsdgfund.org/who-we-are; and of the SDG Localisation marker, see: https://jointsdgfund.org/publication/sdg-localization-marker.
← 5. For more information on how USAID is measuring progress on localisation, see: https://www.usaid.gov/localization/measurement.
← 6. The Creditor Reporting System database can be found at: http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/c.
← 7. Using CRS data to approximate multilateral organisations’ support for locally led development and imputing this back to the DAC funder is a way to partially remedy this gap. This would imply taking the portion of multilateral support for locally led development using the same approach outlined above and then attributing or imputing it back to bilateral providers based on their share of core contributions to multilateral organisations.
← 8. For the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, see https://www.effectivecooperation.org/.
← 9. The 4th monitoring round is conducted over a four-year global rolling round. From 2023 to 2025, countries have the flexibility to participate when most suited to their national processes and priorities. A global monitoring report will be produced in 2026.
← 10. Locally led development co-operation is defined as “development co-operation that supports locally led humanitarian and development assistance by recognising and enabling diverse local actors’ agency in: i) framing; ii) design; iii) delivery, including resourcing; and iv) accountability and learning”. The working definitions of this peer learning exercise can be found in Chapter 1, Box 1.1.
← 11. This approach bears comparison with existing tools for mapping local actor agency across different dimensions of development cooperation (e.g., the DMAT, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/political-economy/assets/the-decision-mapping-tool.pdf), and those that assess agency across a spectrum (e.g., the ladder of participation in the Partos Power Awareness Tool, https://www.partos.nl/publicatie/the-power-awareness-tool/).