Results Matter September 2008
Evaluation of MfDR Implementation over the Last 3 Years
Except from the Task Team Report on the Evaluation of the Paris
Declaration Implementation
July 2008
At the 12th OECD-DAC MfDR Joint Venture meeting, representatives from Sri Lanka,
Cambodia, Philippines, and South Africa discuss the evaluation of MfDR implementation
over the last 3 years.
Evaluations report a prevalent tendency to overlook or underemphasize the “managing
for results” plank in the Paris Declaration, with the main emphasis being
on ownership, alignment, and harmonization. Survey responses report that only
in a minority of countries covered were national strategies and programs monitored
and linked to budgets. Consistent with this, development partners’ reliance
on countries’ results-oriented and monitoring frameworks is reported to
be the exception, not the rule.
A number of country reports, however, included indications of strong progress
in particular areas and ambitious near-term plans to launch and firmly root
strong national systems. A good case can be made that there may actually be
underreporting on managing for results because of a lack of clarity of the concept,
unclear definitions, and understanding.
Challenges at the National Level
Clearly, progress is generally stronger at the sector level, but the move to
the national level is challenging. There are difficulties in finding common
ground on indicators, data sources, and use of national systems. Very few partner
countries are found to have quality results-oriented strategies, and progress
since 2005 is generally assessed here as being gradual and modest.
Although managing for results is gaining importance in many partner countries,
results-based monitoring is still assessed to be the weakest link in the overall
national governance systems of many countries, and budgeting, financial reporting
and auditing remain discrete exercises. The systems of many countries remain
focused on inputs and compliance issues and are only gradually moving to measure
output.
Almost all development partners seem to be engaged in some sort of capacity
development assistance that should strengthen managing for results—be
it support to development of statistics, help in developing results frameworks,
or introduction of a “results culture”—but these efforts appear
piecemeal and are often tied to the specific needs or areas of intervention
of development partners.
Significantly, the indicator for this commitment only concerns the systems
of partner countries, but a good number of the donor evaluations document their
own efforts and continuing challenges in strengthening their own performance
management frameworks, methodological guides, training, and staff awareness.
The actual and potential links between countries’ and development partners’
systems are a key issue for real partnership on these issues.
Many development partners are under pressure to report on outcomes, yet systems
and statistics in partner countries are not geared to provide reliable reporting
at this level, which is why development partners set up their own reporting
systems. As one positive trend, more joint evaluations are reported in several
studies.
There are clear indications in several studies of the pressure faced by donor
agencies to report on results—from parliaments, ministries of finance,
auditors general, and the media. However, the interest is often focused on results
in specific areas where there are strong domestic constituencies (gender or
human rights, for example) and with a wish for direct attribution to the donor’s
own efforts.
Influences on the Behavior of Countries and Development Partners
The reasons brought out in the evaluations for slow progress in implementing
the commitment to managing for results include not only the fact that it is
a relatively new and unfamiliar challenge, but also that it is a very difficult
one to master in many fields. This is amply evidenced by the struggles reported
by some partner agencies themselves, and their own governments, when they admit
that the clarity of certain indicators and conceptual understandings are still
internally debated issues.
Some difficult technical issues arise: in the case of new aid modalities such
as general budget support, it is extremely difficult to measure and attribute
results. In more classic modalities, a lack of clarity about the level at which
results are to be defined leads to confusion on assessing how externally supported
interventions should contribute to development objectives.
Furthermore, results cannot always be captured in “hard” data.
There is a danger of a fixation on available data at the cost of dialogue and
monitoring on genuine policy priorities. Some evaluations report a measure of
resistance among some partner countries to still unfamiliar schemes of managing
by results, apparently unconvinced of their feasibility and/or usefulness in
relation to other day-to-day priorities. The weakness of statistical reporting
is also a key issue, but is said to be improving in some countries, including
through long-term capacity building by development partners. Taking the next
step, to actually using statistical data as a basis for better decisions, often
remains difficult.
At the same time, evaluations highlighted the differences in performance, with
some sectors and some countries showing much faster progress. Experience from
two country evaluations emphasized the importance of leadership in the country
to establish quality systems and use the information for decision making as
well as transparency around results.
The Dilemma of Development Partners
Many development partners are reported to be caught in a difficult situation,
facing pressure to report on results under their own systems but unable to count
on sufficiently robust country systems as a basis. They are also conscious that
there are limits to how hard they can or should be pushing for improvement of
country systems. In such situations, they sometimes find themselves forced to
resort to parallel systems of their own, which can set back their own Paris
commitments to link and align to the country performance assessment frameworks
and thus help strengthen them.
Further, the need for reporting to specific constituencies on specific issues
to some extent shapes the design of development partners’ results-based
management systems. This will not necessarily match the partner country’s
often-fledgling systems, and development partners are cautioned in the Paris
Declaration not to request the introduction of such indicators.
In terms of direct incentives, donor personnel are generally committed to the
Paris Declaration, but their performance is often measured in terms of their
own corporate results frameworks, sometimes coming back to the delivery of inputs
or outputs—i.e., short-term results. This can jeopardize capacity building,
and lead to behavior that is not in line with Paris principles.
has never been stronger.
In June 2008, members of the Asia, Africa, and Latin America
Communities of Practice on MfDR attended
the MfDR Joint Venture meeting in OECD Headquarters, Paris.
View entire document
| Newsletter
archives | Subscribe
Topics 
Top of page
