Roundtable Topic 4: Managing for Development Results

This page comprises information on background resources for Roundtable 4, compiled by the United Nations Development Programme. It does not necesserily represent the views of the Third High Level Forum organizers.

To access detailed information on the background resources for Managing for development results listed below, please visit the UNDP Aid Effectiveness Portal.

Background Resources

World Bank, “Results-based National Development Strategies: Assessment and Challenges Ahead”, October 2007
Three criteria: (i) quality of development information; (ii) stakeholder access to development information; and (iii) co-ordinated country-level monitoring and evaluation. The quality of survey-based data on poverty and human development has been increasing in most countries, but administrative data remains a weakness. Data sharing and dissemination have somewhat improved, but feedback loops into policy and planning remain a major challenge. On the whole, only 3 countries from the sample of 62 had “largely developed” performance assessment frameworks, although more than half had taken some action towards establishing them. 

David Booth and Henry Lucas, “Good practice in the development of PRSP indicators and monitoring systems”, ODI Working Paper 172, July 2002
This study finds that the PRSP initiative has led to an upsurge the measurement of final poverty outcomes, through household surveys and participatory poverty assessments. However, there is less interest in measuring intermediate process and achievements, which in the short term is more important for both learning and accountability. This contributes to the famous problem of the “missing middle”: PRSPs tend not to identify the causal process by which their proposed actions will impact on poverty outcomes. This makes it difficult to select indicators which will verify whether or not these causal effects are actually taking place. It stresses that what matters is not technically advanced monitoring systems, but mechanisms to ensure that the available information is used to inform policy making. It calls for a new “political economy of information” to understand why this is not happening.

Lucas, Henry, David Evans & Kath Pasteur (IDS), “Research on the current state of PRS monitoring systems”, DFID, July 2004
This detailed study commission by DFID explores institutional frameworks for poverty monitoring, capacity constraints, decentralisation, participation, data sources, analysis, dissemination and policy feedback. It notes a tendency for monitoring reports to be produced to meet donor requirements, rather than support national policy-making, and for the tendency of donors to undermine the creation of a national system by insisting on stand-alone monitoring arrangements. 

Tara Bedi, Aline Coudouel, Marcus Cox, Markus Goldstein and Nigel Thornton, Beyond the Numbers: Understanding the Institutions for Monitoring Poverty Reduction Strategies (World Bank: Washington, 2006)
This World Bank book is a study of the institutional arrangements for poverty monitoring systems, based on 12 country case studies. It finds that the record on establishing monitoring systems is very modest. Few countries have made much progress in rationalising ad hoc monitoring arrangements into a coherent system. Lack of coordination, lack of demand for information from decision makers, unclear mandates and responsibilities, lack of relevant and timely data and limited accessibility are all identified as key constraints to a culture of results-based decision making. It finds that, beyond weaknesses in data collection, few countries are making effective use of the data they have. There is a lack of data analysis, poor dissemination of data, and no institutionalised processes for feeding results information back into the policy and budget processes. Given the scale of the challenges, the book concludes that development an effective national monitoring system needs to be a gradual process, beginning with what is already there and introducing a flexible system that can be adapted over time. The book also contains diagnostic and guidance tools designed to help practitioners develop monitoring systems. 

The International Budget Project
The IBP was formed within the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in 1997 to build civil society capacity to analyze and influence government budget processes, institutions and outcomes. The IBP works with organisations that focus on the impact of the budget on poor and low-income people in developing countries or new democracies, with a view to making budget systems more responsive to the needs of society and more transparent and accountable to the public. It supports individual CSOs engaged in capacity building on budget monitoring, encourages civil society networks, and seeks to raise the profile of budget work in the international community. It commissioned a briefing paper from ODI on how civil society can have policy influence through budget monitoring. 

Budget Information Service (BIS)
BIS was created by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) in 1995 to monitor inclusion and democracy in post-apartheid government policies. It has established a strong reputation in budget analysis, and provides support to civil society organisations throughout Africa.  Its site contains many useful resource and toolkits, particularly on fiscal decentralisation and gender auditing.

DAC Network on Development Evaluation
This sites includes the official DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance, guidance on joint evaluations, and various publications from the Evaluation and Aid Effectiveness Series. It links to the DAC Evaluation Resource Centre: a one-stop-shop for use by partners, development agencies, civil society, researchers, students and the interested public to quickly and easily find, access and learn from a wide array of key evaluation publications. It contains over 1500 evaluation reports, and is updated regularly.

DAC Joint Venture on Managing for Results
The Joint Venture was formed to promote international lesson-learning and communities of practice on managing for results. It conducts periodic Roundtables for exchanging international experience, most recently in Hanoi in February 2007. It has also published a Sourcebook on Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Results.

World Bank PovertyNet
Poverty monitoring involves tracking progress over time in achieving results in reducing poverty, including setting indicators and targets, building statistical system and setting in place poverty monitoring systems. The World Bank PovertyNet site offers a variety of resources, including country reports, data sources, training materials, key readings and links.

Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (Paris 21)
Paris21 is a partnership of policymakers, analysts and statisticians from around the world, established following the UN Conference on Development in 1999. It promotes the production of high-quality statistics and statistical systems, and encourages the development of a culture of evidence-based policy making. The site contains documentation on measuring progress against MDGs, managing and developing statistical systems, and designing and implementing national statistics development plans. It has produced a “Guide to designing a National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS)”, November 2004 – a manual designed to assist developing countries and their international advisers to design statistical systems and promote better use of statistical data.

Managing for Results at the Asian Development Bank
The ADB sites contains an MfDR Resource Center, with ADB policy documents, best-practice guidance and other relevant documents on managing for results. It contains a wealth of case study material from Asia.