Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

Evaluating Country Programmes
188
Box 7.1. Influence and impact
Example 1 – A CP could be in the condition of having had a very good potential
impact, since it was not only relevant compared to the initial context, but also the
actual performance of the country has confirmed its goals and the suitability of its policy
orientations. On the other hand, however, its interventions have been completely
isolated from the actual context and processes. The good performances of the country
are mainly due to the Government and those donors who have promoted some key
reforms, of which the CP under evaluation was a beneficiary more than a supporter.
Example 2 – A CP could have ensured an important part of the resources, which
have been used to attain stabilisation and growth in a given country over a given
period, as well as to start some key reforms. Its quantitative impact must be judged
significant. On the other hand, the relevant donor has been absent in a number of
crucial processes that have allowed the mentioned results, such as the launching of
substantial reforms in the social sectors and the establishment of a new regulatory
framework for business development, etc.
very opportune in the present historical and political framework and represents a
long-term challenge for both parties, with encouraging prospects. In this respect,
the newly established “EU Common Strategy for Russia” is a framework even larger
and more explicit than the PCA, whose content has already been mentioned.
Notes
1. The new Regulations and NIPs are proposed to cover a 6-year period. This may improve
the planning capacity, but – if no adequate measures are taken – will increase the gap
between planning and actual decision-making.
2. EC – DG IA: presentation of PCA on DGIA Web site – March 1999.
3. For more theoretical justifications, see also: IDS Bulletin on Programme Aid Evaluation,
Fall 1996. In particular, Caputo E: The case of EC.
OECD 1999