1. From Effective Aid to Effective Institutions
Synthesis of Joint International Evaluations
Julia Betts and Helen Wedgwood Paris 5th October 2011

2. Structure Rationale Content and method Findings Learning
Implications for Busan?

3. Rationale Purpose – Overview of evidence base
Status – work in progress, policy briefs
2nd draft Outcome Doc, Manila Consensus (PFM); Cusco Declaration (Procurement)
Coverage - Key aspects of public sector governance and aid effectiveness
country ownership and leadership
centre of government capacity for planning
financial management and delivery
accountability and incentives for reform
the channelling and management of development assistance

4. Content and Method 4 joint international evaluations:
Public Sector Governance Reform
Budget Support
Paris Declaration
Anti-Corruption
Country studies (22) plus syntheses
Analysis of findings and conclusions - themes from First Draft Outcome document + GovNet priorities SOME CAUSAL FACTORS
Evidence base to inform discussion
Limitations – draft reports, PFM not available, limited on fragility / gender

5. Three Themes
1. What has been achieved from the combined effort to make states more effective and accountable?
2. What contribution and quality of development cooperation partnerships?
3. Progress on the measurement, monitoring and use of results information to drive future progress.
Three categories
Majority of studies report positive progress;
Reports divided between good and poor results;
Majority of reports cite poor results.
OVERALL – Findings mostly in the ‘mixed progress’ category.
(different starting points / mixed success)

6. Findings on Impact
What has been achieved from the combined effort to make states more effective and accountable?
Connection from development assistance to impact level results challenging in governance.
Few results at impact level and few direct connections between development aid and impact-level results
Budget support - health and education (Mali), tertiary and vocational training (Tunisia); primary education and roads (Zambia) – plus macro-economic environment (Tunisia)

7. 1. Making States More Effective and Accountable?
CONSISTENTLY POSITIVE PROGRESS
Public Financial Management – efforts showing results
Country ownership of / commitment to reform
Country efforts to improve transparency, but donor effort insufficient
MIXED OR INCONSISTENT PROGRESS
Improving accountability to citizens and parliaments e.g. state accountability / oversight functions - donors mainly process efforts
Inconsistent approach to generating inclusive dialogue on reform
Contributions (donor) to combating corruption; stronger frameworks, institutions, dialogue & information - limited impact on trends
CONSISTENTLY WEAK / LIMITED PROGRESS
Reform efforts at the centre of government
National procurement systems - donor insistence on own systems
Demand side accountability – insufficient attention despite improved consultation

8. 2. The Global Partnership
CONSISTENTLY POSITIVE PROGRESS
Trend towards improved quality of aid partnerships – transparency, country ownership
Improved quality of dialogue on policy and institutional reform - Budget support a major contributory factor
MIXED OR INCONSISTENT PROGRESS
Some moves towards joint analysis, but insufficient political economy analysis
Alignment and Donor co-ordination and harmonization slow & uneven
Predictability improving, but disbursement delays still problematic.
Capacity development efforts slow, un-coordinated, short-term
CONSISTENTLY WEAK / LIMITED PROGRESS
Mutual accountability - continued asymmetrical relationships
Limited use of country systems - even in face of reform.
Donor risk aversion - variable attitudes undermining effectiveness.

9. 3. Measuring Results NO areas of CONSISTENTLY POSITIVE PROGRESS
MIXED OR INCONSISTENT PROGRESS
Momentum growing for performance management approaches
Progress on performance assessment tools though weaknesses in content. Budget Support a major positive driver
Joint monitoring and review improving - but seemingly no reduced burdens
CONSISTENTLY WEAK / LIMITED PROGRESS
Frustratingly weak progress in managing for results - few donor programmes in support, lack of clarity on goals and strategy
National monitoring and evaluation systems still weak & poorly integrated
Few public sector reform –related programmes with robust theories of change and monitoring systems .

10. Examples – factors in success / failure?
E.g. PFM reform – success?
International (not donor-led) standards
Focus on transparency and accountability (beyond aid)
Measurability of progress
Budget support aid dialogue
E.g. Civil Service Reform support – failure?
Drivers of reform largely domestic – not ODA
Reform affecting the political process
Challenge to monitor quality of performance
Political risk underestimated
Different agendas / ways of working, donors v reform process

11. Some Learning?
Confirmed existing lessons - but that still need learning: eg.
ODA partnerships matter – but context, politics and political will matter far more
Donors can make important contributions but need to ‘walk their talk’ more
Countries need to move from planning to execution / beyond the central
Some strong areas of progress to build on:
public sector legal and policy frameworks for accountability & oversight
national planning and budget
translating reform into reduced corruption
Reform success associated with:
Benefits to citizens
Wider competitiveness and national economic development agenda
Transparency – open government

12. Implications for Busan?
Approaches
Cannot buy reform – must work with the grain (national political economy)
Importance of shared vision and agreed strategies / results
Need for consistency / coherence / sequencing in approach
Needs different ways of working from donors in complex reforms (mismatch)
Some priorities?
Rethinking public sector reform strategies and support – political economy vs technocratic, incentives vs systems, long term capacity development vs short term results
Risk acknowledgment and management – fiduciary vs strategic, use of country systems, national political risk
Accountability – mutual & demand side, inclusive dialogue (national)
Results measurement and management - donor support, national M&E systems, measurability
Importance of ‘new’ capacity development (international standards / peer to peer support / peer review)

13. Further information Helen Wedgwood – h-wedgwood@dfid.gov.uk
Managing for Results in complex long term processes demands long term vision and long term commitment; a contextualised strategy based on understanding of political economy & a mature approach to risk
‘Donor governments need to acknowledge frankly that development and development aid are inherently uncertain and risky and put in place measures to manage risks jointly with partners in the spirit of a mature partnership.’
Helen Wedgwood –
Julia Betts –
Megan Kennedy-Chouane –