What is a

Theory of Action?

Summary ● A Theory of Action is the delivery model for a Theory of Change.

● Typically, a Theory of Action describes how a project or a programme is
designed and set up. It articulates the mechanisms through which the
activities are being delivered, e.g. through which actors (for example,
NGOs, government or markets) and following which processes (for
example, grants to NGOs disbursed from a challenge fund, provision
of technical assistance, advocacy activities, or the establishment of
partnerships).
● It is important to articulate a Theory of Action at a programme’s design
stage because it affects the Theory of Change and the programme’s
delivery. A programme theory simply does not “exist” without a Theory
of Action, and its rationale cannot be tested unless the programme logic
specifies how the ‘change logic’ is going to be implemented.
● It is crucial to articulate the Theory of Action for a programme from
an evaluation perspective. If a Theory of Action is clearly articulated,
the evaluator can more easily assess what went wrong – the project or
programme theory (Theory of Change) or its delivery (Theory of Action).

A Theory of Action is the While Theories of Change are nowadays commonly found as part of the
documentation of a programme and their use is increasingly routinised
operationalisation of the by implementers and evaluators, Theories of Action (or implementation
Theory of Change of a theories) have not been used as often to describe the operationalisation of a
programme’s activities.
specific programme or
But if Theories of Change are useful for articulating an intervention logic within
intervention the complex environment in which programmes are being implemented, aren’t
implementation theories equally necessary as they are the supporting structure
for change?
In this policy brief, we argue that Theories of Change
and Theories of Action should be approached as a single
exercise at the project design stage.
A Theory of Action illustrates how a programme is
constructed to ‘activate’ the Theory of Change.
Typically, a Theory of Action describes how a programme
is designed and set up. To operationalise a programme’s
Theory of Change, a practitioner should ask:
●● Is the programme working through partnerships?
●● Is the programme directly transferring goods and
services to beneficiaries?
●● Is it a technical assistance programme?
●● Is it an advocacy programme?
For example, a programme aiming to increase girls’
school attendance, which is set up as a fund disbursing
grants to civil society organisations, is a good example of
a programme directly transferring goods and services to
beneficiaries through civil society.
A programme aiming to increase research outputs and
knowledge production between the UK higher education
sector and partner countries’ universities, policy institutes
and research agencies by facilitating the conditions for
collaboration is a good example of a delivery model
focused on establishing partnerships and long-term
linkages between institutions.
Theory of Change and Theory of Action combined
provide the programme theory.
A Theory of Action is the delivery model for a Theory of
Change. A Theory of Change describes the processes
through which change comes about for individuals,
groups or communities. A Theory of Action articulates
the mechanisms through which the activities are being
delivered, e.g. through which type of actors (for example,
NGOs, government or markets) and following what kind
of processes (for example, grants to NGOs disbursed
from a challenge fund, provision of technical assistance,
advocacy activities, facilitation of or the establishment of
partnerships).
It is possible to operationalise the same Theory of Change
in different ways, that is, through different Theories of
Action.
Theory of Action vs. Theory of Change
A Theory of Change and a Theory of Action follow the
same logical structure: sequential, with steps leading
to the long-term goal and objectives of a programme.
When producing a Theory of Action, it is crucial to
differentiate between the settings in which change
will happen (the Theory of Action) from the change
mechanisms themselves (the Theory of Change). But both
remain inter-related: a Theory of Change and a Theory of
Action are intertwined parts of the same logic.
Similarly to a Theory of Change, a Theory of Action
has its own logic, processes and mechanisms. It also
creates outcomes and impacts of its own.
When a specific delivery model is chosen for a programme,
it produces certain structures, linkages or partnerships
which can have sustained effects in the long term. These
can range across:
●● Memorandums of understanding, new partnerships
created;
●● Strength/ maturity of new networks;
●● Resources and contributions leveraged from
stakeholders;
●● Relationships formed with supporting organisations/
government departments as a result of advocacy
activities;
●● New market linkages created or facilitated; etc.
These are outputs, outcomes and impacts in their own
right, which serve as a supporting structure for the Theory
of Change to unfold and realise its benefits.
Let’s use the example of the programme aiming to increase
collaboration between the UK higher education sector
and universities, policy institutes and research agencies.
The implementation theory focuses on establishing
partnerships, which are the basis for the programme to
delivery its activities (delivering grants, creating research
hubs, commissioning joint research programmes across
countries and institutions).
Despite being a ‘mean to an end’, this partnership delivery
model produces structures: academic networks are
created, memorandums of understanding are signed
between institutions, new stakeholders are brought in
and match funding is leveraged from them, etc. In turn,
these structures and newly established linkages between
institutional actors or individual researchers may lead to
further collaborations in the future, beyond the activities
supported by the programme. This is the implementation
logic illustrated on the right-hand side of the diagram on
the next page.
2
Why is it important to use a Theory of
Action?
A programme theory simply does not exist without
a Theory of Action articulating how the Theory of
Change will be delivered.
It is important to articulate a Theory of Action at the design stage
because it has an effect on the Theory of Change and its delivery.
A programme theory simply does not ‘exist’ without a Theory of
Action, and its rationale cannot be tested unless the programme logic
specifies how the ‘change logic’ is going to be implemented.
A programme’s delivery model creates outputs,
outcomes and impacts that should be captured as part
of the monitoring and evaluation of the programme.
Although results frameworks commonly tend to focus on outputs,
outcomes and impacts resulting from the Theory of Change, a
programme’s delivery model also creates outputs, outcomes
and impacts, and there is often an intrinsic value in measuring and
monitoring these ‘delivery’ outputs, outcomes and impacts, in
particular to capture early signs of sustainability.
It is important to articulate the Theory of Action for a
programme from an evaluation perspective.
Evaluators often refer to the difference between theory failure and
implementation failure, i.e. the difference between a programme
not working because the Theory of Change is not right (theory
failure) and a programme not working because the delivery
model is dysfunctional or did not unfold the way it should have
(implementation failure).
If a Theory of Action is clearly articulated, the evaluator can more
easily assess what went wrong – the programme’s theory (Theory of
Change) or its delivery (Theory of Action).
What next?
To date, Theories of Action have not been used much,
either by donors, implementers or evaluators. In cases
where an implementation theory is articulated, it is done
rather informally and often minimised as a programme
‘management plan’. As such, it is hard to tell whether
delivery models are fully explored, assessed and reflected
upon in the same way that Theories of Change are
evidenced, tested, piloted, adapted and made ‘fit for
purpose’ to achieve programme objectives.
From both the implementation and evaluation perspectives, there
is an urgent need to dedicate more attention, time and resources
to developing Theories of Action. This will ensure more systematic
learning of what works and what does not work in the field of
implementation theory and its practice.
coffey.com/international-development