1. Richard Manning Seoul, 7 October 2013

2.  Beijing, 1994: ‘Most of the goals set out in the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women [ten years earlier] have not been achieved.’  1996: OECD: ‘these goals must be pursued country by country through individual approaches that reflect local conditions and locally owned development strategies.’  2009:RM Study for DIIS: ‘Not enough is known about [the impact of the MDG framework] on policies and resource allocation in developing countries. Evidence from Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers shows a good deal of rhetorical support for selected aspects of the framework, but translation into actual resource-allocation appears to be weak in many cases.’  2013: IDS Bulletin: ‘The MDG framework has had some real world traction in some circumstances, but little in others, with relative aid dependence (both of the country and of the specific MDG) maybe a marker of how significant this traction has been’. Role of UNDP also highlighted.  So: Korean Government’s attention to this dimension and the continued engagement of UNDP are very welcome.

3.  Public policies will be central to success  Public service delivery will be important in many (but not all) areas  Effectiveness of public institutions (at both national and local level) therefore vital  But major concerns over this……….  ………..and poor record of institution-building  Donor support often ineffective  And it’s not just a Southern issue (eg international taxation stretches capacity in all countries)

4.  Individual staff competencies matter (level 3)  So education systems and targeted training matter  But staff cannot be effective if overall institution is poorly managed or cannot retain staff (level 2)  Hence much traditional T/A achieves few sustainable results  And institution cannot be effective if operating environment badly flawed (level 1)  Hence even soundly-designed institution-wide reforms often fail

5.  At each level, incentives are central to performance and can create either virtuous or vicious circles  At level 1, governments need to expose institutions to effective scrutiny [accountability and audit; Parliamentary scrutiny; independent evaluation; transparency; whistle-blowing; anti-corruption]. Commitment from the top of Government matters!  At level 2, top managers need to set clear objectives [hopefully related to locally-owned post-215 goals], delegate and hold to account, monitor and evaluate  At level 3, ownership of objectives, appropriate skills, and constructive performance review needed  But beware of simple answers…..

6.  Joint research project between: Makerere University and World Vision in Uganda, Oxford University, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, and University of East Anglia. Jacobus Cilliers, Ibrahim Kasirye, Clare Leaver, Pieter Serneels and Andrew Zeitlin.  Tested four schemes: monitoring by Head Teachers or Parents, with either financial bonus or reporting by SMS.

7.  Local monitoring improves teacher attendance but only when the head teacher is responsible and there are financial incentives for teachers.  All monitors understate teacher absenteeism and parents more so than head teachers.  Local monitoring schemes can improve teacher presence at relatively low cost. However, quality of reporting may be a challenge. Preliminary evidence from a further pilot scheme suggests that parents can play an important role by auditing monitoring by head teachers.  Shows local accountability systems are complex, with competing incentives not just for teachers but also for monitors. Monitors care about school performance but have to balance this against questions of morale and the legitimate challenges that face teachers and against time and effort required for effective oversight.  Localized accountability systems are complex, and we are just beginning to learn how technological advances should be matched with the human challenges facing teachers, managers, and parents.  So: much scope for experiment.

8.  Governments need to be competitive employers of their own talent, while keeping public paybill affordable  May imply smaller public sector with more wage differentiation – not a road to popularity!

9.  Thank You!