When the Theory Was a Compromise: Rethinking Theory-Based Evaluation for Frameworks Forged in Political Processes
Imagine you are asked to evaluate a framework — a regional cooperation model, an international standard, a multilateral protocol — and your first task, as any good evaluator would do, is to reconstruct the theory that underpins it. You interview stakeholders. You review the founding documents. You trace the programme logic. And what you find is not a theory. What you find is a negotiation that never ended. The language is purposefully vague. Key provisions carry multiple interpretations, each defended by a different constituency. The outcomes were left undefined not because no one thought about them, but because getting agreement on definitions would have broken the consensus needed to adopt the framework at all. Different member states signed on for different reasons. Some sought binding standards; others wanted a soft reference point with no enforcement teeth; a third group simply needed the political optics of participation. This is not a design failure. This is how normative fr...