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 for Public-Private Dialogues? n Donors are increasingly sponsoring PPDs: – National, Regional and Sector Business Forums – Investor Councils – Competitiveness Task Forces n 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 Provide PPD Sponsors and Participants? n M&E frameworks provide an objective base from which to assess program performance n M&E frameworks provide a foundation and inputs for the management of PPD programs n The use of M&E frameworks over time facilitates learning processes—within and across programs and among donors n 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&E Frameworks n Knowledge needed to construct M&E logical framework is not fully in-hand at program design stage n Participants in PPDs debate over and may refine activities, outputs and outcomes – that is, participants take program “ownership” seriously n 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 n 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 Participation Outputs and Impacts Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-National Role Sector Specific Role International Role Post-Conflict Considerations Donor 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 Design phase goals 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 goals6 month check12 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 goals6 month check12 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 n 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 Logical Framework during PPD Implementation Outputs Outcomes Impact Inputs

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues Recommendation 2: Apply M&E Logical Framework during PPD Implementation n 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) n 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 Process Frameworks for Mid-Stream Correction n M&E Process Frameworks encourage greater learning as regards how program performance can be improved n 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 n 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? n Avoid making PPD too rigid by insisting on complete M&E Logical Framework at the design stage of program n 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 n 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 n Jesse Biddle Center for International Development State University of New York Ph n Benjamin Herzberg Investment Climate Unit Private Sector Development The World Bank Group Ph