• Dr. V. Rengarajan Senior Consultant, MIDS, Chennai, India
  • Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS), Chennai



Theory Of Change, Causal Path, Process Monitoring, Impact Evaluation

Abstract [English]

Theory of change has been a useful evaluation tool for social science research. The interest in its use has been notable in recent years amongst international aid organisations and public authorities who make huge investment in social oriented intervention with more focus on the challenges related to gender empowerment and poverty cure in rural area. Logically, the achievement of intended change (impact) matters. In this context, the emerging question is: 'How are we getting a candid profile of change after the project implementation? The sources of data for analysis are taken from evaluation reports of Programme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission, Government of India.  

Among the convolutions, found in the theory of change the important one is that the monitoring system does not extend beyond output level in the causal path revealing only impaired impact confining to the physical achievement vs target. This apart, there is no process monitoring of implementation and mid-course corrections. The paper suggests a slew of critical constituents for the refined theory of change which include: (a) process monitoring; (b) result based monitoring and evaluation (c) transparent outcome and the impact; and (d) human behaviour.


Download data is not yet available.


Amartya K. Sen (1987). On Ethics and Economics, Oxford University Press, p xiii.

Amartya K. Sen (1987). On Ethics and Economics, Oxford University Press, p.74.

Amartya K. Sen (1972). Control Areas and Accounting Prices: An Approach to Economic Evaluation the Economic Journal Vol. 82, No. 325, Special Issue: In Honour of E.A.G. Robinson (Mar., 1972), pp. 486-501 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Economic Society DOI: 10.2307/2229949 16 DOI:

Carol Weiss (1995). As quoted by Danielle Stein and Graig Valters p: 3. (also see website details).

Gittinger, J. P (1982). Author Affiliation: Economic Development Inst., World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. Book: Economic analysis of agricultural projects. 1982. Edn 2, pp.526-541: John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore: USA.

GOI. (1985). Evaluation Report on Integrated Rural Development Programme. PEO, New Delhi. May.

GoI. (1980). Evaluation of Food for Work Programme, Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO), Planning Commission, New Delhi, Final Report. November. Pages 4, 46, 47.

Home credit India Ltd. (2019). As quoted Tamil Newspaper Dinamalar dated 11th August.

Madhulika Khanna, Nishtha Kochhar, and Nethra Palaniswamy (2013). World Bank. A Retrospective Impact Evaluation of the Tamil Nadu Empowerment and Poverty Alleviation (Pudhu Vazhvu) Project, Draft Report December.

E, J. Mishan (1986). Economic Myths and the Mythology of Economics (Routledge Revivals) Paperback – 30 Sep 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0415688758 ISBN-10:0415688752 Edition: Reprint

MIDS (2020). Remembering Malcolm S. Adiseshiah, Madras Institute of Development Studies. P 150.

Rengarajan (2011). Keynote Paper “Need for Integrated Evaluation Approach for Development Programmes in Asia and AFRICA” 1st Pan Asia Africa M&E Forum RB&ME and beyond Increasing Effectiveness in M&E, Bangkok, Thailand. November 26 to 28.

Rengarajan (2013). Microfinance Principles and Approaches: Ten Commandments for Responsible Financing to the Poor, Notion Press. Chennai: Pages 48, 49, 52, 53, 58.

Stein and Valters (2012) p 4. (also see website details).

Tiruvallur District, Human Development Report (2017) P 154.

Van es et al (2015) Humanistisch Instituut voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries.




How to Cite

Rengarajan, V., & Sivasubramaniyan, K. (2020). THEORIES OF CHANGE IN THE PROCESS OF RURAL TRANSFORMATION: A REFINED WAY FORWARD. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(7), 279–297.