The Use of Evaluation in Managing for Development Results: Evidence from Malawi Ronald Mangani Chauncy Simwaka Elliot Phiri Prepared for the International Conference on National Evaluation Capacities Johannesburg, South Africa September 2011 __________________________________________________________________________

Overview ____________________________________________________________ The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS)The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) –Medium term national strategy for growth, prosperity, welfare –Identifies development priorities –Guides resource allocation: output  based budgeting –MGDS I: 2006/07 – 2010/11 –MGDS II: 2011/12 – 2015/16 (in draft) MGDS Evaluation: Annual MGDS ReviewMGDS Evaluation: Annual MGDS Review –Three Annual MGDS Reviews done –Overall responsibility of M&E Division, MDPC 2

Nature of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ MGDS I had 6 (later 9) priority areas & 5 thematic areasMGDS I had 6 (later 9) priority areas & 5 thematic areas –MGDS sets targets and performance indicators for these areas 3

Nature of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ 5 thematic areas divided into 16 sectors  Sector Working Groups5 thematic areas divided into 16 sectors  Sector Working Groups –SWG institutionalisation guidelines in 2008: as per PD; AAA –SWG members: GoM, Donors, private sector, civil society –Most SWG not functional  MGDS Review mostly focusing on GoM Focus of Annual MGDS Review per areaFocus of Annual MGDS Review per area –Results (output): performance w.r.t. MGDS outcomes, outputsperformance w.r.t. MGDS outcomes, outputs –Budget: performance w.r.t. budgetary allocationsperformance w.r.t. budgetary allocations –Development Assistanace (aid effectiveness): performance w.r.t. Aid alignment to GoM systems, predictabilityperformance w.r.t. Aid alignment to GoM systems, predictability –Performance on MDGs Review time-line: July – JanuaryReview time-line: July – January –Facilitates subsequent national budgeting 4

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ MGDS is basis for national appropriations: $2.0b in 2011/12MGDS is basis for national appropriations: $2.0b in 2011/12 MGDS Outlines development prioritiesMGDS Outlines development priorities –Key input in decision-making for GoM and non-state actors Primary users of MGDS reviews:Primary users of MGDS reviews: –GoM vote controlling officers –GoM Ministry of Finance –GoM Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation –Development partners –Members of Parliament –Civil Society organisations –Private sector 5

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ GoM vote controlling officers Typically PSs, directors, heads of parastatalsTypically PSs, directors, heads of parastatals Use reviews asUse reviews as –Assessment of own performance –Basis for proposing subsequent programmes and funding Reviews enhancing programming transparencyReviews enhancing programming transparency –Officers more careful in choice of programmes for inclusion in budget 6

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ GoM Ministry of Finance Identifies and allocates budgetary resources  Budget DivisionIdentifies and allocates budgetary resources  Budget Division –In collaboration with Revenue; Debt & Aid Management; Economic Affairs; MDPC. Uses Reviews in value-for money analysesUses Reviews in value-for money analyses Output-Based Budget DocumentOutput-Based Budget Document –Enhances transparency in programming and appropriations –Outlines planned and actual outputs; –Provides measure of vote alignment to MGDS –MGDS Review key in assessing alignment of prior allocations to MGDS 7

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ Development Partners Contribute significantly to the GoM BudgetContribute significantly to the GoM Budget –36.5% of 2010/11 Budget; of which: –21.3% as GBS; 47.6% as project support; 34.2% as dedicated funding –Project support & dedicated funding largely reply on MGDS Review –Reviews crucial for IMF programme loans  key signal to donor aid Provide significant off-budget supportProvide significant off-budget support –72.3% of direct donor support of $0.83b will be off-budget in 2011/12 –Provision of such funding is guided by sectors performance in MGDS Review 8

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ Members of Parliament Provide checks on sources and uses of national resources:Provide checks on sources and uses of national resources: –Budget and Finance Committee –Public Accounts Committee –Parliamentary sector committees Review providesReview provides –Transparent framework for conducting such checks –Means for holding Executive accountable for variations between targets and outcomes –Basis for validating actual accomplishments in constituencies –Catalyst for rich parliamentary debate 9

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ Civil Society Organisations (CSOs/NGOs) Implement development projects outside national budgetImplement development projects outside national budget Usually funded by donorsUsually funded by donors –13.7% of $0.83b donor support will be administered by NGOs in 2011/12 –MGDS sector performance evaluations = CSO/NGO evaluations too –Reviews inform CSO programming processes & proposals for funding Reviews directly inform CSO workReviews directly inform CSO work –Assessment of trends in economic governance –Assessment of performances in sectors of interest  lobbying, education –CBAs by technicians 10

Use of MGDS Evaluation ____________________________________________________________ Private Sector Has interest in value-for-money analysis of taxation outcomes; sometimes keen on corporate social responsibilityHas interest in value-for-money analysis of taxation outcomes; sometimes keen on corporate social responsibility MGDS Reviews inform sector in:MGDS Reviews inform sector in: –contributions during budgetary consultations  lobbying –Choice of direct interventions under corporate social responsibility 11

Limitations ____________________________________________________________ MGDS too Broad-basedMGDS too Broad-based –Deviation of resources from planned activities may not bring mis-alignment with MGDS –Focused prioritisation could bring commendable evaluation outcomes Too many non-functional SWGToo many non-functional SWG –Low evaluation scores in sectors dominated by non-state actors may be misleading Non-separation of implementation and evaluation roles from ExecutiveNon-separation of implementation and evaluation roles from Executive –Definitions of indicators & choice of data all by Executive –Some evaluation outcomes can be questioned Data limitationsData limitations –MfDR capacity scans located this as key challenge to evaluations 12

End Thank You