Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

OECD 1999 Country Programme Evaluation: A State of the Art Review It seems clear that there is a common general rationale for CPEs: in combination with more established evaluation approaches based on programme, sector and cross-cutting themes (e.g. gender or the environment) they are an essential component of a country programme -based approach. At an operational level, however, there is no standard rationale for CPEs. The idea of “horses for courses” applies: donors need to specify their objectives and the use to which a given CPE will be put. These determine the scope, format and methodology of the CPE approach. These issues are examined in the next two sections. Scope and coverage of country programme evaluations This section addresses a number of closely related aspects of the breadth and depth of analysis provided by contemporary CPEs. This draws out some of the conceptual issues facing those commissioning or conducting a country programme evaluation: the definition of performance criteria, the time period that should be evaluated, and the definition of the boundaries of the subject matter for a country programme evaluation. The practicalities of operationalising these choices are explored in the next section, which examines the ways in which CPEs attempt to measure or otherwise quantify performance criteria, examine country-wide issues, and provide insights into agency-wide (or “systemic”) issues. Breadth of analysis CPEs in the sample reviewed varied considerably in the breadth of their analysis. The concept of “breadth of analysis” is used here with two aspects in mind. The first component of breadth concerns the time period under review. Only a few donors restrict their analysis to the current country programme cycle or the cycle most recently completed. (These CPEs fall towards the forward-looking end of the historical-to-forward-looking continuum described in the above section on rationale.) The majority of CPEs reviewed in this study evaluated programme performance over the entire history of donor-partner aid relations. In some cases this was only a matter of a few years (e.g. Irish aid to Ethiopia or South Africa); in other cases this history of donor-partner co-operation stretches over two or three decades (e.g. Irish aid to Zambia, most of the Netherlands aid programmes). In practice there is inevitably a tendency to weight the evaluation to recent or ongoing activities (see Table 2.5). The second component of “breadth” concerns the examination of influences upon country programme performance which lie outside the country programme itself. There are several of these influences. – First, there is the country context. All the CPEs reviewed in this study provide some background information on the partner country development situation. However, the detail in this material varies greatly. Many CPEs provide 67
Evaluating Country Programmes 68 Timespan under review Table 2.5. Timespan evaluated in CPE Number of CPEs Number % Specific programme cycle 3 12 Full history of donor-partner aid relationship 22 88 Source: Authors. only a short and general description: others explicitly relate the partner country development situation to the country programme through a detailed examination of economic trends, the nature, incidence and depth of poverty, or the development policy of the partner government. – Another aspect of breadth concerns whether the report addresses systemic issues, defined here as issues relating to relations between the country programme and donor headquarters. These issues may have a significant bearing upon the performance of a country programme yet may not be adequately described in a CPE which focuses upon the country programme without looking at the wider donor organisation within which it is a component. Examples of systemic issues include delays in recruiting for key positions or disbursing funds; frequent changes in policy; support from desk officer specialists when needed; or the sudden switching of personnel or funds to another country programme. Systemic issues were mentioned in three-quarters of the CPEs reviewed (e.g. UNDP/Myanmar; EU/Ethiopia; Netherlands/India). In most cases, however, the reference to systemic issues was extremely fleeting. It is not clear whether the absence of discussion of systemic issues in the majority of CPEs was the result of a conscious decision based upon time and resources available for the evaluation; a constraint imposed by the terms of reference; or simply that it was not considered by the evaluators. Commissioning a CPE with a remit to examine the realisation of agency-wide goals in a country context (e.g. Danida / Nepal) is one obvious way to facilitate an examination of systemic issues in aid performance (see Table 2.6). – Finally, for bilateral donors there are non-aid aspects to the holistic donor country-partner country relationship which may have an influence on aid relationships: this includes trade and investment flows, the status of diplomatic relationships between the two countries, and historical (often colonial or migratory) ties between the two countries. These are mentioned in passing in a few reports but explored in detail in only a minority of cases (the three second-round Netherlands CPEs) (e.g. Netherlands/Bangladesh 1998: 43-50). OECD 1999
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 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: Evaluating Country Programmes 66 In
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 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 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: OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 115 and 116: Methodology OECD 1999 CPE in the Ne
Page 117 and 118:
OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
Page 119 and 120:
OECD 1999 CPE in the Netherland’s
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?