Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Evaluating Country Programmes 30 Box 1.4. Influences upon the capacity to identify and measure the impact of a country programme Degree to which aid flows dominate the economy (nationally, sectorally, regionally) or share influence with domestic investment (private and public) and private international capital. Degree to which the donor in question dominates aid (nationally, sectorally or regionally) i.e., degree to which effects of that donor’s aid can be isolated from effects of aid from other donors. Nature of aid instruments in the country programme (project, programme, technical assistance, etc.). Nature of the sectoral focus of the country programme (impact seen sooner in productive sectors than in health, education or administration sectors). Country programme has maintained a consistent focus (sectoral, geographical or thematic) and approach over a long period. Quantity and quality of baseline and current information on development performance (macroeconomic, human development indicators) by which to measure change. Resources (time, analytical skills and money) available for CPE data collection and analysis and quality of country programme information systems [records of programme decision-making, M & E (monitoring and evaluation) database etc.]. Availability of suitable component comparators (projects of similar type run by partner government, NGOs or other donors in country in question or by the same donor in other countries). Availability of suitable national comparator(s): country or countries with similar natural resource endowments and socio-cultural, economic and political systems at baseline, which have not received aid, for which good baseline and current information are available. from this inequality. Partnership can be seen as valuable in prosaically methodological terms, as a means to the end of more insightful evaluation: for example, partner governments can often provide useful insights into how one donor compares to another and a means of benchmarking. 17 More importantly, partnership is for many donors a matter of principle connected to more general concerns with aid formulation and implementation. Partnership in Country Programme Evaluation is seen as a way of improving the quality of aid by incorporating (or at least recognising) the views and resources of various stakeholders. As a forum for the expression of different opinions, a Country Programme Evaluation can provide a valuable opportunity to foster a sense of shared commitment to a common goal; consultation in Country Programme Evaluation can build trust among the donor, partner government and intended beneficiaries. This emerged strongly in the review of the Swiss experience with Country OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluation: Synthesis Report from the Workshop Programme Evaluation in Tanzania (see Chapter 4). By corollary, if mishandled, a Country Programme Evaluation can make stakeholders feel excluded and damage the relationships necessary for success in country programming. A CPE can itself serve as part of the aid delivered through the country programme: the research process and the presentation and discussion of conclusions can provide an opportunity for donor and partner government to clarify their perspectives and positions. One partner country participant noted that one donor’s CPE can also throw light on the work of many donors working in the same country. CPEs should be seen as an episodic but integral element of country programming. If there are strong arguments for partnership, there are also practical limitations to the degree of effective co-operation between donor and partner which can be achieved. As in other forms of evaluation, the meaning of participation in Country Programme Evaluation must be carefully specified. There are many potential partners, who may not necessarily agree in their judgements on the strengths and weaknesses of a given country programme. The perspectives of the partner government, through which the majority of ODA is still channelled, may be different from the perspectives of those who are intended to be the ultimate beneficiaries of aid, namely the civil population (and especially the poor). In reality, differences in opinion between different partners may be more complex than this. Neither states nor civil societies are ever monolithic: different segments of the state (politicians, line ministries, local government) and society (ethnic groups, classes, regions, occupational groups, businesses, NGOs) will have different ideas and capacities which they can bring to the partnership with the donor (whether in implementation or evaluation). There is a need to think in more detail about what is meant by partnership, who are the partners in the country programme and who could be the partners in Country Programme Evaluation (ideally but not necessarily the same actors), and how they might participate in evaluation. This point is developed well in the review of practices in the MDBs (see Chapter 5). It was noted that country ownership of the country programme and Country Programme Evaluation (which implies a more significant transfer of power than “partnership”) is an essential but complex process involving “social buy-in, government accountability and political legitimacy” (MDBs Evaluation Co-operation Group, 1999: 5). The degree of partnership which can be achieved in researching, writing and acting upon a Country Programme Evaluation is also limited by the nature of the CPE itself. The donor pays for the CPE exercise which, whatever else it may be, is conceived as a management tool to be used by the donor to improve both the country programme in question and (through more generalisable lessons about concept, design and implementation) agency-wide approach and management. 18 A CPE is also intended as a means by which to hold bilateral agencies accountable to 31
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 21 and 22: DONOR INFLUENCES Evaluation skills
Page 29: OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
Page 41 and 42: 13.00-14.30 Lunch break 14.30-15.30
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 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: Evaluating Country Programmes 70 Bo
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:
Evaluating Country Programmes 86 Bo
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:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluat
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 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Traditional tools: relevance, effic
Page 155 and 156:
Measuring sustainability OECD 1999
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Rating country strategies and assis
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Country Assistance Strategies as a
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Introduction OECD 1999 Chapter 9 Th
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Executive summary OECD 1999 Chapter
Page 213 and 214:
OECD 1999 Country Programme Plannin
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
OECD 1999 Chapter 11 Real Progress:
Page 229 and 230:
Real Progress: Fifty Years of USAID
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
OECD 1999 Real Progress: Fifty Year
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
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?