Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$CQE=U]^\]Z: KAZAKHSTAN - OECD Online Bookshop$

Evaluating Country Programmes 186 Evaluation of impact and donor co-ordination The main criteria for country programme evaluation are relevance, impact, and process efficiency. The evaluation of programme effectiveness mainly concerns the individual programmes and projects, which are part of a given CP. Of course, a number of considerations are necessary with regard to the effectiveness and sustainability of the main components of a CP, although – given their general nature – they may well be common to the evaluation of impact. With respect to the evaluation of impact, a long theoretical discussion has been developed in the past years on various key issues: – Against which measurement criteria should the impact of a country programme be evaluated? How extensive is the change in the recipient country that the CP has contributed to? Ideally, the evaluators should be aware of what would have happened in the country without the CP, all things being equal (counterfactual analysis), but this is simply impossible. – How to identify the impact of a specific CP in a context in which a number of donors are operating and the CP under evaluation is only a sometimes small part of the larger aid programme. To furnish a practical response 3 to these issues, we are currently undertaking two operations: – Actual country performance is being compared to the CP strategy – both in general, and in particular in the sectors focused on by the Tacis CP. This exercise includes qualitative and quantitative evaluations: were the objectives set out in the CP strategy met, and to what extent? Did the CP contribute a significant share of the resources allocated to the processes that have led (or should have led) to the realisation of these objectives? The exercise provides a yardstick for the ex-post relevance (both qualitative and quantitative) of the CP; it does not permit the impact to be measured as yet. It should be considered more as a means to measure the potential impact. – The actual contribution of the CP to the crucial processes that have determined the country performance – as well as the relevant policy dialogue between the EU and Russia – is being assessed. This exercise provides a basis to evaluate the influence of the donor. Influence is a word which became commonplace in development jargon. However, it can be ambiguous. Influence may mean capacity to push, drive, condition, or ability to dialogue and co-ordinate. In the latter sense, influence is a key factor in CP management and is very important – though not easy to assess – in evaluation. OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Issues for Country Evaluation: The Case of the EU Country Programme in Russia Figure 7.1. The impact of a country programme evaluated as a function of the ex-post relevance quality and size of the CP and the donor’s influence (policy dialogue and donors’ co-ordination) Influence Influence Source: Source: Authors. Relevance Relevance CP has shown to be appropriate, particularly in size, to face the transition bottlenecks; but the donor has overlooked policy dialogue with the recipient country and co-ordination with other donors CP was not appropriate, in strategy and size, to face the transition bottlenecks; and the donor has overlooked policy dialogue with the recipient country and co-ordination with other donors Impact Impact CP has shown to be appropriate in strategy and size to face the transition bottlenecks; and the donor has played an active role in policy dialogue with the recipient country and co-ordination with other donors CP was not appropriate, especially in size, to face the transition bottlenecks; but the donor has been able to play an active role in policy dialogue with the recipient country and co-ordination with other donors One of the most important areas for influence application and measurement is donors’ co-ordination. Enhancing the quality of donor co-ordination could increase the impact of development aid. Figure 7.1 and Box 7.1 illustrate how combining Relevance and Influence evaluation may assess CP impact. With respect to the specific conclusions of our evaluation of the impact of the Tacis country programme in Russia, it is too early to give much detail. At a very preliminary level, however, it is possible to say that the impact has been: – Particularly high in education and training. – Medium in governance. – Medium to low in enterprise restructuring and building the framework for a market economy. A renewed effort to increase strategic partnership and economic integration between the EU and Russia-beyond the already significant although dispersed attempts which have been made in this direction during the past years – appears 187
Page 1 and 2:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 3 and 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluating Country Programmes 4 The
Page 7 and 8:
Evaluating Country Programmes 6 SDC
Page 9 and 10:
OECD 1999 Glossary of Acronyms and
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 1 Co
Page 13 and 14:
Rationale, purpose and use OECD 199
Page 15 and 16:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
DONOR INFLUENCES Evaluation skills
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
13.00-14.30 Lunch break 14.30-15.30
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
OECD 1999 FINLANDE/FINLAND Ms. Eeva
Page 47 and 48:
OECD 1999 PORTUGAL Mr. Mario Mendes
Page 49 and 50:
Mr. Wolfgang GRUBER Director, Proje
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Evaluating Country Programmes 54 It
Page 55 and 56:
OECD 1999 56 Mali . . . . . . . . .
Page 57 and 58:
Evaluating Country Programmes 58 -
Page 59 and 60:
Evaluating Country Programmes 60 po
Page 61 and 62:
Evaluating Country Programmes 62 Bo
Page 63 and 64:
Evaluating Country Programmes 64 -
Page 65 and 66:
Evaluating Country Programmes 66 In
Page 67 and 68:
Evaluating Country Programmes 68 Ti
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Evaluating Country Programmes 72 Re
Page 73 and 74:
Evaluating Country Programmes 74 pe
Page 75 and 76:
Evaluating Country Programmes 76 va
Page 77 and 78:
Evaluating Country Programmes 78 (e
Page 79 and 80:
Evaluating Country Programmes 80 Th
Page 81 and 82:
Evaluating Country Programmes 82 ou
Page 83 and 84:
Evaluating Country Programmes 84 Wi
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Evaluating Country Programmes 88 Ap
Page 89 and 90:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.3 Complete Lis
Page 91 and 92:
OECD 1999 93 Complete list of known
Page 93 and 94:
OECD 1999 95 Complete list of known
Page 95 and 96:
OECD 1999 The CPE review instrument
Page 97 and 98:
OECD 1999 Appendix 2.5 List of Dono
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
OECD 1999 Checklist of questions (c
Page 103 and 104:
Country programme evaluations - See
Page 105 and 106:
Summary OECD 1999 Chapter 3 Country
Page 107 and 108:
Background OECD 1999 CPE in the Net
Page 109 and 110:
CPE in the Netherland’s Developme
Page 111 and 112:
OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Methodology OECD 1999 CPE in the Ne
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Evaluating Country Programmes 124 P
Page 123 and 124:
Evaluating Country Programmes 126 G
Page 125 and 126:
Evaluating Country Programmes 128 R
Page 127 and 128:
Evaluating Country Programmes 130 3
Page 129 and 130:
Evaluating Country Programmes 132 P
Page 131 and 132: Evaluating Country Programmes 134 Y
Page 133 and 134: Evaluating Country Programmes 136 N
Page 135 and 136: Evaluating Country Programmes 138 O
Page 137 and 138: Evaluating Country Programmes 140 p
Page 139 and 140: Evaluating Country Programmes 142 R
Page 141 and 142: Chapter 5 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 143 and 144: Country Assistance Evaluation in th
Page 145 and 146: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Evalua
Page 153 and 154: Traditional tools: relevance, effic
Page 155 and 156: Measuring sustainability OECD 1999
Page 159 and 160: Rating country strategies and assis
Page 169 and 170: OECD 1999 Chapter 6 French Experien
Page 171 and 172: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 173 and 174: OECD 1999 French Experience with Co
Page 175 and 176: French Experience with Country Prog
Page 177 and 178: OECD 1999 Chapter 7 Issues for Coun
Page 179 and 180: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 181: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 185 and 186: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 8 Co
Page 187 and 188: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
Page 191 and 192: Country Assistance Strategies as a
Page 203 and 204: Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 9 Th
Page 211 and 212: Executive summary OECD 1999 Chapter
Page 213 and 214: OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 227 and 228: OECD 1999 Chapter 11 Real Progress:
Page 229 and 230: Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 231 and 232: Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 233 and 234:
OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Assessment OECD 1999 Real Progress:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Sectoral successes: activities with
Page 257 and 258:
Evaluation of macro-level performan
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
OECD 1999 Appendix 11.1 Sectoral an
Page 271 and 272:
OECD 1999 Bibliography Real Progres
show all

Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?