Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

Country Programme Evaluation: A State of the Art Review
It should be noted in this context that some of the questions asked in CPEs are
also the subject of research studies. There is a large research-based literature on
the impact of aid, some of it sponsored by donors (e.g. recent work on aid effectiveness:
World Bank, 1998). While there is obviously overlap between the two, as ideal
types research can be distinguished from evaluation by the time spent (longer), the
methods employed (more likely to include quantification as well as impressions),
and the communication pathways used (less likely to feed directly and automatically
into policy). Some types of question may be better suited to a research framework
than an evaluation framework.
Finally, the structure of the report needs to be explained. The terms of reference
identified three main categories of issues (design, partnership arrangements,
use) which would have made obvious chapter headings. However, the amount of
material available on each of the three issues varied greatly, with little on partnership,
and very little on use. We have therefore organised our findings in a different
way, dealing successively with a) rationale and use, b) scope and coverage, and
c) methodological practicalities. The three topics specified in the Terms of Reference
are dealt with in the greatest depth possible under these headings. In the final section,
we summarise the main lessons, and propose a preliminary listing of good
practice criteria. These lessons – or issues – are presented in Appendix 2.9 as a
checklist of key questions for any donor initiating a country programme evaluation.
Rationale for country programme evaluations
Underlying rationale: the transition to country programming
The background to the increase in country programme evaluations has been
the increasing importance of country programming within official development aid
(a point made in most of the presentations to the 1994 conference on CPEs). Some
bilateral donors – such as Norway – adopted country programming from the mid-
1970s (Norad, 1994: 1); others only started to implement country programming from
the mid- to late-1980s. There is a consensus that there are significant advantages to
repackaging aid into coherent country programmes which reflect a holistic analysis
of the partner country’s needs and a systematic response on the behalf of the
donor. The corollary of the country programming approach is the conclusion that
evaluation which focuses on the country level is a valuable component of aid
evaluation.
The need to look at country-level impact is particularly critical if it is accepted
that all aid is “fungible”. A recently published World Bank study has concluded that
project finance does no more than expand the capacity of the government to carry
out additional tasks: that is, the effect of aid is diffuse, improving state institutions,
OECD 1999
59