Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Evaluating Country Programmes 34 Box 1.6. The case for multi-donor collaboration on Country Programme Evaluation – Reduces duplication of effort in background context analysis: research into national problems, opportunities, current and forecast performance can profitably be shared. – Reduces the burden upon partner stakeholders, who need only meet with evaluators once. – Each of the agencies involved obtains access to the other(s)’ M & E findings, i.e. obtains comparators against which to benchmark its own performance. – Opportunity for donors to learn from each other (both in aid effectiveness and in Country Programme Evaluation). – Opportunity for donors to build on co-ordination in Country Programme Evaluation to achieve greater co-ordination in design and management of aid. Conclusions and future directions CPEs completed to date have demonstrated a diversity of specific rationales, a wide range in the timespan and resources which donors are prepared to commit and considerable variation in the particular characteristics of a country situation and country programme design. It was argued in the review paper that the basic rationale for a CPE is to assess a coherent country programme. The case studies presented at Vienna suggested that while this was the most important role of CPEs, the relationship between CPE (broadly defined) and country programme (again, broadly defined) could also be conceived in different ways. Several donors, for example, have used CPEs (often of a type emphasising country situation analysis) to initiate country programming. In establishing or reviewing partner country needs, CPEs can reinforce consistency, coherence and predictability of agency approach, even if this is not formulated as a singular country programme administered through a national office. The agency can refer to these plans or policies when resisting pressure to adopt projects which reflect the idiosyncratic interests of politicians or programme officers, businesses pushing for contracts, or elite actors in the partner country. 19 The specific purposes for which a CPE is intended (the rationale) and for which it is subsequently used (not always the same) can be defined in terms of the level(s) at which it is intended that the CPE should influence practice. Differences OECD 1999
OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluation: Synthesis Report from the Workshop in rationale and use can also be defined in terms of the balance between the importance attached to accountability, learning and planning. Although there is much overlap, there are also points of divergence: a relatively “light” self-evaluation exercise (as favoured by the Swiss, for example) can identify major lessons in a relatively short period of time, whereas one intended to trace and (ideally) measure aid impact in order to account to a Board or Parliament will require a more lengthy and expensive process. The different perspectives upon the relationship between CPEs and country programming shifted the emphasis in the definition of and rationale for Country Programme Evaluation somewhat away from that provided in the review paper, broadening it slightly. It is important to see Country Programme Evaluation as part of a longer and broader process of formulation, implementation and feedback operating at several levels (project, country, agency-wide, donor community and development theory). Country Programme Evaluations are likely to have the greatest impact upon practice if they feed back rapidly into policy dialogue and programming and if partners can and do participate substantively in both country programming and Country Programme Evaluation. There are also numerous ways in which insights could be improved and costs reduced if donors were to overcome the obstacles (donor and partner) that stand in the way of multi-donor CPEs. If donors are unwilling to open their country programmes to external scrutiny through participation in joint evaluations, then they can at least profit from sharing the cost of a background context/needs analysis exercise. The diversity of contemporary practice in Country Programme Evaluation was seen by the participants at the Workshop as a healthy phenomenon. The differences in donor and country programme goals and management systems mean that it is impossible to derive recommendations for best practice which will be valid for all types of CPEs. Instead, Box 1.7 presents a set of guidelines to good practice for certain situations or items that should be considered in formulating a Country Programme Evaluation. 20 35
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 33: 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?