The success of an international development project: lessons drawn from a case between Morocco and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the literature on decisive criteria for the success of international development projects, this article presents a case of cooperation between Morocco and Canada on the implementation of projects to institutionalize gender equality within the Moroccan public administration. Based on a triangulation of data and starting from an analytical framework on the factors decisive for the success of international development projects, this case study illustrates the limited success of the project. Although the elements that are decisive for the success of Tier 1 of the FAES projects have resulted in the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of the projects, the creation of local expertise and the production of tools and strategies that aid institutionalization of gender equality, this study highlights significant barriers to institutionalization. These relate mainly to the difficulty of involving stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle, the lame functioning of the projects’ governance structures and the struggle to take ownership of projects designed on the basis of a management by results logic based on models specific to the donor. This case feeds the critical reflection on the various issues and challenges inherent to the management of international development projects and suggests various avenues of research. Points for practitioners The case presented in this article involves the implementation of projects to institutionalize gender equality within the Moroccan civil service supported by the Canadian cooperation agency. Although its success requires the involvement of the stakeholders, the development of local expertise and the production of institutionalization tools, this case brings to light significant obstacles to institutionalization, such as the difficulty of involving the stakeholders in the project, the limited functioning of the governance structures and the struggle to secure the ownership of the projects, designed according to models specific to the donor. It also reveals the limits of a management by results style and its consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".