Managing for Development Results at ADB

Results Matter September 2008

Addressing Issues in Implementing Results-Based Country Partnership Strategies
By Chang Ching Yu, Principal Results Management Specialist, SPRU

ADB Managing Director General Rajat Nag discusses RB-CPS implementation issues with staff.

Results-based country partnership strategy (CPS) is, by nature, an iterative process. The core elements of this “feedback loop” include

1. strategic planning (i.e., agreeing on the goals and outcomes to be achieved);
2. making decisions on interventions including budgeting, program and project designs and policies, monitoring and evaluation (i.e., benchmarking and reporting on whether the allocated resources are making the intended difference); and
3. adjustment (i.e., feedback of evidence into decision making for readjustment of policy measures and resource allocation).

In implementing results-based CPS, the following issues should be addressed:

Weak Theories of Change
Although the long-term development goals that CPSs are supporting are generally adopted from various national development plans, the identification of key constraints and intermediate outcomes by ADB usually does not undergo rigorous analyses. The indicators and targets are often determined rather casually. The achievement of the lower level changes, such as project or sector intermediate outcome, does not necessarily lead to the achievement of higher-level changes, such as strategic and long-term impact.

Many key constraints identified to be addressed by ADB simply mirror ADB’s traditional business areas, leaving an impression that the constraints are so presented to justify the proposed ADB interventions. The approval of ADB’s long-term strategic framework (LTSF) and the commitment that attend the recent replenishment of the Asian Development Fund provide a new impetus for vertical integration of the results chain starting from project level output and outcomes, to sector and country level outcome, and to regional (Asia and the Pacific) outcomes.

Imperfect Information on Development Impact
Developmental impact of projects or programs is by nature difficult to measure for several reasons. First, the impact is rarely instantaneous. The long time frame for the developmental impact poses a challenge for a successful MfDR agenda. The impact or outcome of the projects or programs is usually not yet detectable during the implementation period of a CPS. Over a longer term, the relevance of impact and outcome assessment for the purpose of feedback to program design and implementation may diminish after the program is completed.

Second, there appears to be a major mismatch between what is desired in terms of assessing the developmental impacts for MfDR and what the modern measurement sciences can realistically deliver because of a number of reasons, such as lack of resources or information, technical constraints, uncertainties associated with attribution, etc. Staff turnovers and changing ADB priorities also affect the continuing efforts in assessing the impact of past CPSs.

The uncertainties regarding impact assessment are unlikely to diminish, but lack of information should not be an excuse for inaction. The challenge for ADB or any MfDR practitioner is the same for all risk managers: to base their decisions on imperfect information. This may involve finding a programmatic “middle of the road” option that incorporates the useful concepts and principles of MfDR and makes best use of available impact assessment techniques and information (including qualitative and survey information, and sometimes best-educated guesses).

Institutional Appetite for Adjusting Strategies and Programs Based on Results
Although the regional departments are constantly adjusting their projects and programs in response to the changing needs of the client countries and other factors, such an adjustment is rarely made based on the assessment of whether or not the previous CPSs have accumulatively and progressively achieved their outcomes and contributed to expected impact. Rather, other factors such as clients’ requests and evolving business opportunities tend to dominate the adjustment. Aside from the lack of timely assessment of CPS outcomes described above, the other reason is the strong competition among international financiers for “bankable” projects. The need for nurturing a results-oriented culture among all the multilateral and bilateral development agencies in a concerted manner has never been stronger.