PREM Notes

176 items available

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/10986/9424

This note series is intended to summarize good practices and key policy findings on poverty reduction and economic management (PREM) topics.

Items in this collection

Now showing 1 - 10 of 48

Public Participation in the Budget Process in the Republic of Korea

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2013-06) Kang, Young Kyu ; Min, Saw Young

In January 2013, the International Budget Partnership (IBP) released the latest Open Budget Survey (OBS) with a new section on public participation. The survey results are not encouraging. For the 100 surveyed countries, the average score for public participation in the budget process is 19 out of 100. However, one country stands out. With a score of 92, Korea emerges as the only country ‘that provides extensive opportunities for public engagement’ (IBP 2012, 33). What makes Korea an exception? This note investigates the different public participation mechanisms in Korea and illustrates how public inputs are reflected in the country’s budget process and fiscal policies.
Building Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity in the Republic of Yemen

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2013-03) Ivins, Ingrid ; Hwang, Helena

This note disseminates key lessons learned from the World Bank financed project in the Republic of Yemen, monitoring and evaluation of the poverty reduction strategy paper and reform programs, which established and operationalized a poverty reduction strategy monitoring unit. The approaches used, such as a study tour to Uganda, focused international training sessions, and the successful work on improving and minimizing the number of indicators, provide some lessons learned for other countries seeking to build monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity. Policy makers learned from Uganda s good practices of connecting accountability with resource allocation and of the importance of a strong and independent statistics office. The Republic of Yemen s experience also illustrates the value of having a powerful M&E champion to support such a significant initiative. Finally, the inclusion of civil society organizations in the planning process and in M&E outputs, especially on the central level and on policy matters, increased popular support and was an important factor in building M&E capacity.
The State Results-Based Management System of Minas Gerais, Brazil

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04) Busjeet, Gita

In 2003, Minas Gerais's state government (GMG) launched an ambitious plan that gradually introduced a results focus into the public administration and led to the creation of a Results-Based Management (RBM) system relying on performance information generated by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tools. A case study of Minas Gerais's RBM system offers insights on: 1) the role of a facilitating environment and individual government champions for reform; 2) M&E tools founded on the desire to strengthen strategic planning; 3) the power of a strong incentive structure; and 4) the value added of investment in institutional and human capacities. The focus on priority policy areas and programs allowed GMG to build an RBM system supported by M&E infrastructure led by the executive branches of government: the governor and vice governor, the Ministry of Planning and Management (SEPLAG) and the State for Results Program (EpR), a small executive team created in 2007 specifically to provide support to the states for results reform agenda.
Conducting Diagnoses of M&E Systems and Capacities

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-11) Shepherd, Geoffrey

A diagnosis of a country's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities is indispensable if that country is to develop projects or policy proposals to improve the impact of M&E. This note provides a guide to some of the topics that need to be considered when undertaking such a diagnosis. These topics emphasize both the institutional analysis of factors that drive demand for M&E and the technical factors that drive supply. For each of the nine topics identified, this note discusses some of the major issues analysts would need to consider. This discussion principally centers on reviewing how these issues were covered in recent M&E studies for a number of developed and developing countries.
Chile's Monitoring and Evaluation System, 1994-2010

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-08) Dussauge Laguna, Mauricio I.

The Chilean Management Control and Evaluation System (Sistema de Evaluacion y Control de Gestion) is internationally regarded as a successful example of how to put into place a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. Chilean M&E tools are the product of both cross-national lesson-drawing, and national policy learning experiences. The main M&E tools are centrally coordinated by the Ministry of Finance's Budget Office (Direccion de Presupuestos, or DIPRES) and promote the use of M&E information in government decision-making processes, particularly those related to the budget. These M&E tools have been, however, subject to a number of criticisms. As a result, the experience described in this note does not necessarily offer a model that can, or should, be easily transferred to other countries with different institutional contexts. Furthermore, this note does not reflect the latest changes, nor does it try to offer guidance for the future. However, the Chilean experience summarized here, covering the period of 1994-2010, provides interesting examples and highly relevant lessons about the benefits and limitations of M&E design and implementation.
Defining and Using Performance Indicators and Targets in Government M and E Systems

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-07) Castro, Manuel Fernando

Developing effective national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and/or performance budgeting initiatives requires well-defined formulation and implementation strategies for setting up performance indicators. These strategies vary depending on a country's priority for measuring results and on the scope and pace of its performance management reform objectives. Some countries have followed an incremental method for developing indicators, that is, progressively, at strategically selected programs/sectors (for example, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Colombia), while others have taken a comprehensive, 'big bang' approach by defining indicators for all existing programs and sectors at once (for example, Mexico and the Republic of Korea). In both cases, countries need to continuously work on their indicators to improve their quality and thus ensure that indicators can meaningfully inform government processes.
The Canadian Monitoring and Evaluation System

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-06) Lahey, Robert

Performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation have long been part of the infrastructure within the federal government in Canada. With more than 30 years of formalized evaluation experience in most large federal departments and agencies, many lessons can be gained, not the least of which is the recognition that the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system itself is not static. The Canadian government has a formalized evaluation policy, standards, and guidelines; and these have been modified on three occasions over the past three decades. Changes have usually come about because of a public sector reform initiative such as the introduction of a results orientation to government management, a political issue that may have generated a demand for greater accountability and transparency in government, or a change in emphasis on where and how M&E information should be used in government. This chapter provides an overview of the Canadian M&E model, examining its defining elements and identifying key lessons learned.
Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for Program Monitoring and Evaluation: Why Are Mixed-Method Designs Best?

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-05) Adato, Michelle

Despite significant methodological advances, much program evaluation and monitoring data are of limited utility because of an over-reliance on quantitative methods alone. While surveys provide generalizable findings on what outcomes or impacts have or have not occurred, qualitative methods are better able to identify the underlying explanations for these outcomes and impacts, and therefore enable more effective responses. Qualitative methods also inform survey design, identify social and institutional drivers and impacts that are hard to quantify, uncover unanticipated issues, and trace impact pathways. When used together, quantitative and qualitative approaches provide more coherent, reliable, and useful conclusions than do each on their own. This note identifies key elements of good mixed-method design and provides examples of these principles applied in several countries.
The Australian Goverrnment's M&E System

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-03) Mackay, Keith

Countries from all over the world have shown an interest in Australia's experience in creating a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that supports evidence-based decision making and performance-based budgeting. The Australian M and E system in existence from 1987-97 was generally considered to be one of the most successful and was driven by the federal Department of Finance (DoF). This note discusses the genesis, characteristics, and success of this particular system and briefly considers the Australian government's approach to M and E after the system was abolished. The contrast between these two periods provides many valuable insights into success factors and challenges facing successful M and E systems, and into implementing evidence-based decision making more broadly.
The Design and Implementation of a Menu of Evaluations

(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-01) Rubio, Gloria M.

Policy makers and program managers are faced every day with major decisions resulting from insufficient funding, ongoing complaints about service delivery, unmet needs among different population groups, and limited results on the ground. There is a menu of evaluation types implemented by developing and Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) countries to tackle a wide range of policy and program management issues, considering time, resources and capacity constraints. International experience highlights the importance of a gradual approach when introducing evaluation tools into country-level monitoring and evaluation (M and E) systems. Different paths may work better for different countries depending on the main purpose of their M and E system, existing institutional capacity, the availability of funds, and external technical assistance.