ABSTRACT
Goals are critical analytical tools for the purpose of this study, and this for three different reasons. First, as intentional outcomes goals serve as guideposts or standards by which actions-or ‘projects’ in the assistance jargon-are judged internally as a well as externally. The multitude of evaluation and supervision reports generated by the two selected donor agencies in this study provides some (quantitative) evidence in support of such observation. Secondly, given their international nature, assistance goals require mediation, translation or otherwise negotiation in the domestic environment of the recipient country. The nature and extent of goal receptivity, compatibility (Levine, 1980), or the degree of congruence with the goals, norms of the host, are therefore among the key criteria to estimate the effectiveness of pursued changes (Cerych & Sabatier, 1986). Finally, as self-imposed constraints goals not only provide signposts of what assistance agencies effectively pursue, but at the same time are indicative of what they do not aspire for (any longer). And even if the resulting sense of priority is far from perfect, as often happens when organizations are known to be generously ambitious (Packenham, 1973), these goals will be instrumental in identifying the changing ideology of international assistance, specifi cally regarding the role of the State in higher education.
