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

Structure Rationale Content and method Findings Learning Implications for Busan?

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

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

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)

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)

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

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.

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 .

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

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

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)

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 – h-wedgwood@dfid.gov.uk Julia Betts – julia@iodparc.com Megan Kennedy-Chouane – megan.kennedy@oecd.org