Evaluation of the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) and of Norad’s Programme for Master Studies (NOMA)

Preface

The evaluation of the two Norwegian sister programmes for learning and research in the South comes at a time when – in this report’s words – globalisation and importance of research-based knowledge make a renewed emphasis on higher education and research necessary. How intriguing is it not then to read that the implications of efforts to further the internationalisation of Norwegian universities are perceived to be a threat to the positive outcomes of the two programmes in the future. Norwegian reforms to make universities more internationally competitive already influence the two programmes tremendously and are likely to do so for years to come, according to the report. This is one background towards which this report could be read. On the other end, the role of institutions of higher learning in fostering knowledge, insight, innovative abilities and creative thinking as preconditions for poverty alleviation should be kept in mind.

The overall conclusion of the evaluation is a positive one. The NUFU and NOMA programmes have significantly contributed to capacity building in the South and, to some extent, also in Norway. Generally the programmes and their working modalities are highly appreciated by recipient countries and partners. In fact – even if the programmes are seen to be supply-driven and the relationships between Norwegian and partner country institutions are seen to be asymmetric – respondents in the South were in general satisfied with the programmes, including the administration, more so than their colleagues in Norway.

The evaluation team has had no problem in identifying one overriding issue which – again in their words – challenges the very foundation of the programmes: the organisational complexity of the Norwegian funding system. Although most recipients and partners value the collaboration, there is also a widespread frustration with the way it is structured, managed and administered. The well-known Norwegian flexibility seems to have escaped these programmes. Urgent action is recommended to rectify the situation.

One observation by the team strikes an accord with some previous evaluations of Norwegian development cooperation. The capacity building is more about individuals than about institutions. The programmes support primarily education of individual students and researchers, and only to a limited extent the wider research environment. As such, the programmes are characterised as somewhat oldfashioned, and steps to move towards arrangements of like-minded donors like Sweden and the Netherlands are recommended. iv Evaluation of the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) and of Norad’s Programme for Master Studies (NOMA)

As one will understand, the evaluators have taken a critical look at the two programmes in a report that is disciplined and thorough. That – however – should not diminish the achievements of the two programmes in contributing significantly to developing capacity in research and higher education in partner countries.

Oslo, January 2010

Asbjørn Eidhammer
Director of Evaluation