SOLUTIONS

66
country strategies in a comprehensive manner
and present the link between changes in
operational priorities and organizational
capacity clearly, whereas this is not currently
the case in the conventional result logframework.
However, the challenges of
choosing outcome and output indicators
based on a volatile and uncertain pipeline of
projects will persist.
3. Finally, the third approach being pursued
by the World Bank and the Islamic
Development Bank is more conventional
and does not change the nature of the results
log-framework. Like traditional results logframework,
it identifies outcomes and outputs
and links them to specific operations, both
ongoing and planned (IsDB 2015). At the
same time, the World Bank is using the
conventional results log-framework approach
as a means to promote their “One Bank”
approach (World Bank 2014).
Conclusion
MDBs are customizing results and alignment
tools to CSPs. These new results and alignment
tools should avoid complexity and excessive
numbers of indicators so that staff can easily
integrate them in their country strategies.
Irrespective of the improvement in tools
applied to country strategies, it will always be
challenging for any M&E system to address
the political economy of performance. Both
lending institutions and client countries have
a clear interest in presenting positive results
and there is therefore a risk that performance
monitoring will be more of a marketing tool
than an instrument to improve operational
effectiveness. The real challenge is therefore
to create a culture whereby evaluation and
results reporting are considered part of a
broader agenda to promote transparency and
development effectiveness that are subsequently
integrated into future country strategies.
eVALUatiOn Matters