Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues Jesse Biddle Center for International Development State University of New York And Benjamin Herzberg Investment Climate Unit The World Bank
Jan 03, 2016
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Jesse Biddle
Center for International Development
State University of New York
And
Benjamin Herzberg
Investment Climate Unit
The World Bank
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Why Develop M&E Frameworks forPublic-Private Dialogues?
Donors are increasingly sponsoring PPDs:– National, Regional and Sector Business Forums– Investor Councils– Competitiveness Task Forces
Need to build knowledge of practices and to synthesize lessons learned
– Case-studies multiplying– Several comparative studies – Several reviews of donor experiences– Development of M&E frameworks important next step
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
What do M&E Frameworks ProvidePPD Sponsors and Participants?
M&E frameworks provide an objective base from which to assess program performance
M&E frameworks provide a foundation and inputs for the management of PPD programs
The use of M&E frameworks over time facilitates learning processes—within and across programs and among donors
M&E frameworks also provide the basis for accountability in the use of funds and to the public
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
PPD Programs: Complications for M&EFrameworks
Knowledge needed to construct M&E logical framework is not fully in-hand at program design stage
Participants in PPDs debate over and may refine activities, outputs and outcomes – that is, participants take program “ownership” seriously
PPDs commonly strive to achieve both “hard” outcomes (e.g., reform of a law) and “soft” outcomes (e.g. build policy reform networks, increase social capital)- “Soft” outcomes can be measured but it may be difficult
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design stage of the PPD
PPDs are process-oriented programs. The Charter of Good Practice identifies a check-list of process, structure and function issues to consider when designing a PPD:
Mandate and Institutional Alignment Structure and ParticipationOutputs and ImpactsMonitoring and EvaluationSub-National RoleSector Specific RoleInternational RolePost-Conflict ConsiderationsDonor Roles and Responsibilities
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD
Mandate and Institutional Alignment Design Monitoring Index
Designphasegoals
6 month check
12 month check
100
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD
Process monitoring index
Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check
100
Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD
Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check
100
Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors
Stated objectives
6 month process score
12 month process score
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Logical frameworks help answer if a program achieved results and so inform consideration of different approaches and reexamination of guiding assumptions
– These frameworks are less helpful regarding how results were achieved and so less able to clarify how program performance can be improved
Recommendation 2: Apply M&E LogicalFramework during PPD Implementation
Outputs
Outcomes Impact Inputs
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 2: Apply M&E LogicalFramework during PPD Implementation
Engage participants in developing the M&E framework as a PPD activity
– Inputs: Donor funding, expertise and networks of participants– Outputs: Advisory services, training provided to key government
agencies (e.g., business registration agency)– Outcomes: Changes in laws, implementation of new
administrative procedures– Impact: Increased Rate of Business Registration (less informality)
Ensure periodic review and revision of the M&E framework by participants as a PPD activity
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Recommendation 3: Use M&E ProcessFrameworks for Mid-Stream Correction
M&E Process Frameworks encourage greater learning as regards how program performance can be improved
Focus Group technique– Use of group discussion to collect information, clarify details and gather
opinions from diverse viewpoints– Can help validate insights in-hand as to program performance
Most Significant Change technique– Collection and synthesis of accounts of significant changes accomplished
by the program– Review and sharing of accounts helps generate lessons learned which can
be used by program participants, donors
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
How to use M&E Frameworks for PPDs?
Avoid making PPD too rigid by insisting on complete M&E Logical Framework at the design stage of program
Go with the flow – PPDs in which participants succeed in taking “ownership” perform better
– Participants can still be called on to apply M&E framework to the program
Budget for appropriate M&E tools for PPDs at the design stage of the program
– The IFC/World Bank, for example, suggest M&E budgets should be 3-5% of total program budget. This may need to be adjusted upwards for PPDs
Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues
Contact Information
Jesse BiddleCenter for International DevelopmentState University of New YorkPh. 518-443-5124 Email: [email protected]
Benjamin HerzbergInvestment Climate UnitPrivate Sector DevelopmentThe World Bank GroupPh. 202-458-7846Email: [email protected]