Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Evaluating Country Programmes 200 time-related, and financial nature. Accordingly, the country concepts should provide pointers on these three types of target criteria as well as to possible deviations from them. It would also make sense if early warning pointers were included, drawing attention to the conditions required for goal achievement and sustainability or to risks and possible needs for intervention. This is also provided for in the BMZ guidelines for the country concepts, though sometimes in rudimentary form. – Substantive monitoring pointers: The most important substantive monitoring pointer contained in a country concept is the indication of the goal of the German development co-operation contribution pursued in a priority area. Country concepts that fail to formulate goals for individual priority areas, which is the case with some of the BMZ’s country concepts, are not particularly suitable as monitoring and strategic controlling instruments, or for that matter as instruments for planning, decision-making, and co-ordination either. The quality of the monitoring (as well as planning and co-ordination) here also depends on the quality of the goal definition. Goal formulations such as “improvement of” are not sufficiently forceful. In defining a goal it is essential that precise information be given on the intended structure-building effects of the German development co-operation contribution. – Time-related monitoring pointers: The guidelines on the presentation of individual priority areas in the country concepts contain two rudimentary timerelated pointers on monitoring which ask: “What are the medium-term goals of the sectoral assistance?” and “With which counterpart institution should development co-operation collaborate in the medium term?” In view of the “help for self-help” principle and the scarcity of resources available for development co-operation, time restraints for German development cooperation contributions are essential. The time perspective implicit in the term “medium-term” must thus be taken seriously. One of the results of the evaluation of country concepts was to recommend time-frame targets at the priority area level. Such targets, which may also include time-related tolerance limits, improve development-related planning, decision-making, coordination, and monitoring aimed at by the BMZ, as well as contribute to enhancing the transparency function of the country concepts. – Pointers on financial monitoring: For the task of identifying future priority areas, the guidelines for the country concepts call for an indication of the “volume of the commitments expected for the future as well as an indicative breakdown across priority areas and instruments (if need be, also relative shifts).” In principle, this is a pointer bearing on financial planning and monitoring. It is important to bear in mind that an effective monitoring instrument must also permit financial monitoring, i.e. identification of financial discrepancies and, in specific cases, make it possible to initiate countermeasures. OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strategies as a Management and Evaluation Instrument for Donors – Early-warning pointers: An effective monitoring instrument should contain pointers bearing on critical variables that might impair goal achievement, and in this way contribute to an early identification of possible substantive, time-related, or financial discrepancies. Information on the framework conditions, counterpart institutions, and target groups in the projects to be undertaken, on co-ordination of the various development co-operation instruments, on conditions, etc. that are called for in the detailed presentation of priority areas in a country concept fulfils this function precisely if it constitutes not only planning references but also monitoring or early-warning pointers. Each of these variables can lead to significant substantive, timerelated, and financial divergences from initial planning. Country concepts that do not contain any such information, or only in rudimentary form, are not well suited as an instrument of effective planning and monitoring. The results of the evaluation of country concepts led to a recommendation for additional information on risk potentials in priority areas-a point well known from project planning. This would improve the country concept’s suitability as a monitoring instrument. The evaluation function of the country concepts While the BMZ guidelines for preparing and using country concepts specify the latter’s function as a planning and management instrument, they fail to give an explicit indication of the role that the country concepts can and should play in the evaluation of country programmes, although this function is implicit. Therefore, it is not surprising that the BMZ’s country concepts have not yet been used as an instrument for systematically evaluating the corresponding country programmes of German development co-operation. The role of the country concepts in the evaluation of country programmes is already mentioned in the standard evaluation procedure. Evaluations have to consider the original goals and design of the undertaking being evaluated as one yardstick and, at the same time, assess the appropriateness of the goals and design in retrospect. Applied to country programmes (i.e. the sum of projects being implemented in a partner country), this procedure necessitates evaluating the country programme in the light of the programme goals and design formulated in the country concept and, in addition, assessing the appropriateness of the goals and design of the country concept. Hence the country concept is an essential yardstick and frame of reference for the evaluation of a country programme and is at the same time, subject to a critical assessment of its appropriateness. To explain this idea more precisely, the basic evaluation issues defined in the DAC Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance (see Box 8.3) can be useful. In line with these, the role of the BMZ’s country concepts in the evaluation 201
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 and 182: Issues for Country Evaluation: The
Page 183 and 184: OECD 1999 Issues for Country Evalua
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 195: OECD 1999 Country Assistance Strate
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 233 and 234: OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 247 and 248:
OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 249 and 250:
Assessment OECD 1999 Real Progress:
Page 251 and 252:
Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?