The findings in this case study are mainly based on material collected during a field trip with a fellow student to Laos in February-March 2005, which was sponsored by Sida through a Minor Field Study scholarship. The original interest was to study a political aid project (Governance and Administrative Reform Project Luang Prabang, GPAR LP) in a country like Laos with very complex preconditions such as one-party polity. In Laos my interest in evaluation of political aid grew mainly because I found out that the two donors in the project, Sida and the UNDP, had reached different conclusions in their respective evaluations of the project.

The main interest in this thesis has been to study how donors have evaluated a political aid project. The study shows that Sida and UNDP used, what in the literature usually is referred to as, Conventional evaluation as methodology when they conducted their evaluations of GPAR LP. The study also shows that the main reason for the different points of view that are expressed in the evaluations depend on a lack of dialogue and consensus, regarding for the project crucial concepts, rather than choice of evaluation methodology. This lack of mutual understanding between the agencies also has implications for the possibilities of the receiving part to create a better understanding and ownership of the project. If Sida and UNDP had chosen to do a mutual evaluation a lot could have been won in the form of time, money and less irritation between the involved parties.

The study finally shows that a different choice of evaluation methodology, in this case Participatory evaluation, could have had some positive effects mostly due to its supposedly democratic methods which are in line with the goals of the GPAR LP- project. One example here is the use of studies of the political context which would have been useful in this case. Another example is that the methodology could be useful to create a better understanding and ownership of the project through its participatory methods.