enhancing evidence-based policy making through country-led m&e systems* marco segone, regional...
TRANSCRIPT
Enhancing evidence-based policy making through
Country-Led M&E Systems*
Marco Segone, Regional Chief, Monitoring and Evaluation, UNICEF CEE/CIS,
and former Vice President, IOCEE-mail: [email protected]
*: The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors.
1. M&E should be instrumental in ensuring effective decision making , by providing strong evidence. Then:
• Why is M&E not playing its role to its full potential?
• What are the factors, in addition to the quality and adequacy of the evidence, influencing the decision-making process in organizations and societies?
• How can the uptake of evidence in decision-making be increased?
Based on book published by UNICEF in partnership with key international institutions
Authors:
21 global evaluation leaders
Partnership:
UNICEF, WB, UNECE, IDEAS, IOCE, DevInfo and MICS
What is Evidence-based Policy making?
An approach that helps people make well informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence at the heart of policy development and implementation.
Putting the best available evidence at the heart of policy making?
Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence
Practice of Political
LifeJudgement Experience Resources
Lobby system►Think-tank► Opinion
leaders► Media► Civil Society
Tec
hn
ical
qu
alit
y an
d t
rust
wo
rth
ines
s
Survey and Administrative evidence
Evaluation evidence
Qualitative research evidence
Systematic review evidence
Consultative techniques
Timing of the
analysis
Low High
Lo
wH
igh
Enabling policy environment
Practice of Political
Life
Putting the best available evidence at the heart of policy making?
Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence
Tec
hn
ical
qu
alit
y an
d t
rust
wo
rth
ines
s
Evidence-based
Survey and Administrative evidence
Evaluation evidence
Qualitative research evidence
Systematic review evidence
Consultative techniques
Virtuous circle countries
Low High
Lo
wH
igh
Opinion-based
Vicious circle countries
Evidence-influenced
Evidence demand-constrained countries
Evidence-influenced
Evidence supply-constrained countries
Enabling policy environment
Judgement Experience ResourcesLobby system
►Think-tank► Opinion
leaders► Media► Civil Society
Timing of the
analysis
Putting the best available evidence at the heart of policy making?
Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence
Te
ch
nic
al
qu
ali
ty a
nd
tru
stw
ort
hin
es
s
Evidence-based
Survey and Administrative evidence
Evaluation evidence
Qualitative research evidence
Systematic review evidence
Consultative techniques
Virtuous circle countries
Low High
Lo
wH
igh
Opinion-based
Vicious circle countries
Evidence-influenced
Evidence demand-constrained countries
Evidence-influenced
Evidence supply-constrained countries
Enabling policy environment
Judgement Experience ResourcesLobby system
►Think-tank► Opinion
leaders► Media► Civil Society
Timing of the
analysis
Practice of Political
Life
Evidence into practice: Increasing the uptake of evidence in policy
making
Data Data ProvidersProviders(Statisticians, (Statisticians, Evaluators, Evaluators, Researchers)Researchers)
Data UsersData Users(Policy Makers)(Policy Makers)
Need to improve dialogue
Improving “usability”of evidence
Reliableand
trustworthyevidence
Getting appropriate
Buy-in
Incentives to use
evidence
What ?Why?
When?How?
Effective dissemination
Wide Access
The “quality” challenge: How to match technical rigour and policy
relevance?
Technical rigourTechnical rigourbut no policy relevancebut no policy relevance
Policy relevance Policy relevance but no technical rigourbut no technical rigour
Better evidence, technically rigorous and policy relevant.
Country-led M&E systems (CLES):
a strategy to matcha strategy to match technical rigour with policy relevancetechnical rigour with policy relevance
Technical rigourTechnical rigour
but no policy relevancebut no policy relevance
Policy relevance
Policy relevance
but no technical rigour
but no technical rigour
Better evidence,
technically rigorous
and policy relevant
Better Better PoliciesPolicies
Better Better Development Development
ResultsResults
CLES: what
Country (and not donors) leads and owns the evaluation process by determining:
what policy or programme will be evaluated (including donors coordination and alignment)
what evaluation questions will be asked
what methods will be used
what analytical approach will be undertaken
how findings will be communicated
how findings will be used
Year 2005Evaluation Associations and Networks
International Level
Regional Level
Sub-Regional Level
National Level
International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE (organisational membership)
International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS
(individual membership)
ReLAC IPEN AFrEA AES EES
ACE
AEA CES
13
Countries
36
Countries
7
Countries
10
Countries
5
Countries
Sub-National SWEPNWEA,SEA, WREN, SQEP
11
International Organisation for Cooperation in Evaluation – IOCE
(Organisational membership)
International Development Evaluation Association – IDEAS
(Individual membership)
Source: Quesnel, 2006
“Country” led?• Not exclusively the Government
• Also civil society, including Professional evaluation organizations (from 15 to 70 in a decade)
Mutual
accounta
bility
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
Managing for
results
Harmoni
zation
Alignment Ownership
National ownership and capacity development: National ownership and capacity development: the key ingredients to CLESthe key ingredients to CLES
Partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies
Partner countries exercise leadership in developing and implementing their national development strategies
Donors respect partner country leadership and help strengthen their capacity to exercise it.
Implications to the M&E Function
Strengthen and use country M&E systemsM&E capacity development
Paris Declaration Commitment
CLES: Challenges
•drive towards ownership is partly supply-driven
•longer time frame
•perceived risk by partner countries that independent evaluations of donor support may have political and financial consequences
•perceived risk by donors of weak national capacities and, in some cases, of weak independence of national M&E systems
CLES: way forward
•Middle income, transition and developing countries cooperation to share good practices and lessons learned
•National evaluation organizations fostering endogenous demand (and supply) for monitoring & evaluation
•International organizations strengthening national capacities to design and implement national M&E systems