Policy Review Good Governance: Democratisation, Promotion of Rule of Law and Combat of Corruption DAC-Evalnet Paris, 15 June 2015 Geske Dijkstra Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Erasmus University Rotterdam

Overview 1.Focus and scope of the policy review 2.Dutch policy context 3.Some results: (1) Desk-study Rwanda (2) Preliminary findings field study Uganda 4.Conclusion 2

Focus on activities that aim for good governance outcomes: 3 Good Governance More democratic participation More accountable government More effective government Improved rule of law Lower corruption Often seen as means toward (impact): Economic growth Poverty Reduction

4 Good Governance Development Focus on activities that aim for good governance outcomes: Good Governance More democratic participation More accountable government More effective government Improved rule of law Lower corruption Often seen as means toward (impact): Economic growth Poverty Reduction

5 Good Governance Development Focus on activities that aim for good governance outcomes: Good Governance More democratic participation More accountable government More effective government Improved rule of law Lower corruption Often seen as means toward (impact): Economic growth Poverty Reduction ?

6 Formulation of Terms of Reference guiding the Policy Review Analysis of Dutch policy Interviews with policy officers and desk-study of policy documents Synthesis Phase: Writing Final Report Policy Response Publication and Dissemination of Final Report Literature Review Desk-study of academic literature and donor evaluations Country Case Studies Ÿ Desk-study on Uganda, Rwanda and Indonesia and Field studies in Uganda and Rwanda Study on Dutch NGOs Desk-study on activities financed by MFS Ÿ Evaluations of NIMD and VNG activities Study on centrally funded programs Policy Review Components

Dutch Policy Context Good Governance PeriodMain contentMeans and/ or end Use: selectivity or promotion Democracy, human rights, corruption Means plus endPromotion, selectivity for budget support Full spectrum of governance Cross-cutting, means plus end Promotion, selectivity for budget support Today Rule of law, democratization and combat of corruption Means for promotion of peace and security, cross- cutting Promotion, in particular in fragile states 7

8 Results (1) Desk-study Rwanda 13 Dutch-supported governance interventions: 7 in justice sector 6 in decentralization Sources of evidence: Evaluations, project documentation, academic literature, interviews Method: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Allows for the systematic identification of condition(s) or combination(s) of conditions that contribute to a ‘successful’ outcome Makes a distinction between ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ conditions Combines detailed within-case analysis with formalized cross- case comparisons Were they successful, and which factors contributed to success?

9 Political will Organizational capacity (implementing agency) Context- sensitivity (intervention’s design) Long-term perspective (by donor) Good governance outcomes Testing (sets of) conditions for necessity and sufficiency Conceptual Model

10 Findings: Two ‘Pathways’ towards Good Governance Good governance outcomes Organizat. capacity Organizat. capacity Context- sensitivity Long-term perspective Path 1 Path 2 Necessary condition Legend: INUS condition Sufficient set of conditions Political will

Results (2) Field study Uganda Local Governance Score-Card Initiative (LGSCI) Implemented by Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) In 26 districts out of 112 From 2009 onward Annual district scorecard reports published, based on: Review of documents and literature Interviews with councillors and written evidence on councillors’ performance Field visits to service-delivery units and interviews with service consumers Focus-group discussions with community groups 11

12 Improved service delivery Greater trust in local government LGSCI More civic Consciousness More information on performance of councilors Capacity building of local governments Increased demand for better services Change in councilors’ behavior More effective oversight re. service delivery LGSCI Intervention Logic

Method and Preliminary Findings Method: Difference-in-difference analysis Examination of the effect of LGSCI on several outcome variables, related to: 1.Budgets actually spent 2.Local revenues 3.Service delivery variables 4.Trust in local government (using Afrobarometer) Preliminary findings Districts with LGSCI spend 7.5% less than other districts, and return a higher % of budgets No effect on local revenues or on service delivery, except for higher number of level III and IV health facilities 13

Conclusion No conclusion yet; it is work in progress! Conclusion will be based on: Combination of desk studies and field studies Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods Qualitative methods benefit from common analytic framework as developed during workshop with SDC and applied in SDC evaluation 14