Explore the vast range of titles available.

Serving as drivers of local innovation, makerspaces in Africa are bridging the gap between theoretical education and practical, hands-on problem-solving by providing opportunities to empower human capital, boost entrepreneurship in local economies, and promote community-centred solutions to local problems. In light of increasing pressure from policymakers and funders for evidence demonstrating community impact, establishing a shared framework of key performance indicators against which African makerspaces can measure success has become increasingly critical. Using an inductive process, a qualitative study was conducted with makerspaces in Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa. This enabled the identification of a set of empirically-derived impact indicators, which can be used as a framework for measuring the success of their spaces, programs, and services. This paper provides an outline of the research process and capacity-building activities, and the resulting indicator framework for measuring impact in African makerspaces.

In the sphere of foreign assistance, there is a growing push for locally led development (LLD). One common argument is that LLD approaches are more effective than traditional approaches for producing project outcomes. However, the empirical evidence for the claim of greater project effectiveness remains unexamined. This systematic review asks 'what is the empirical evidence for the relative effectiveness of LLD approaches compared to traditional, or less locally led, approaches?' We include studies that measure the comparative effectiveness of an LLD approach to a traditional or less LLD approach. We exclude studies that only compare an LLD approach to the status quo or doing nothing. Our index and website search (May 2024) plus snowball search yielded 1,749 hits. Ten studies passed all screening criteria. Study findings are mixed. Our main findings are: there is limited evidence on the relative effectiveness of LLD approaches compared to other development interventions; there is no evidence on relative cost effectiveness; and findings are mixed on the relative effectiveness of the same intervention depending on context and outcomes measured. We conclude that policy advocates should refrain from setting expectations about relative cost effectiveness and focus on other reasons for locally led development. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E9FH3

Despite growing appreciation for the complexity of development and the need for adaptability, there remains a limited evidence base of how, where and why adaptive approaches to development improve development outcomes. This paper examines the organisational and political attributes of support provided to locally led development initiatives in the Pacific region supported by an Australian government development programme, as well as the extent to which these attributes were present in initiatives deemed by programme staff to be more or less successful. Findings include that positive outcomes are more likely to emerge from partners led by women working in politically stable environments. Rather than endorsing donors to support only such projects, we share a combination of findings to offer insights into how the impacts of development initiatives working in politically tricky settings may be understood holistically and with nuance and flexibility, leading to better project design and evaluation.

This article discusses concepts of legitimacy and elite capture in locally led development through a case study of the Pacific-based Green Growth Leaders’ Coalition (GGLC). GGLC is a fellowship of persons identified for their developmental leadership potential on issues of sustainability and economic growth. Members are recruited into an exclusive grouping dedicated to influencing positive developmental change through informal networks and political backchannels. With their membership representing people who both self-identify and are locally recognised as leaders, queries exist to the extent to which their efforts represent a shift towards greater ownership of developmental processes at local levels or simply reinforce elite capture of ‘local voice’ in the most aid-dependent region in the world. Rather than necessarily offering straightforward answers to questions of legitimacy and elite capture, the example of GGLC demonstrates how complex the notion of locally led development can be in practice.