Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Promoting Policy Coherence for Development: Exploring new opportunities for measurement

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)
European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM)

Niels Keijzer, ECDPM Presentation to OECD DAC focal points on Policy Coherence for Development meeting, 9 February 2012

1 of 10
Promoting Policy Coherence for Development Exploring new opportunities for measurement Niels Keijzer PCD focal points meeting OECD, 9 February 2012
A blast from the past? • 2007: Joint-evaluation of EU mechanisms promoting Policy Coherence for Development • What impact of mechanisms? changed sector policies, improved reporting on PCD, increased levels of awareness…no common view • “In the absence of a clearly stated view of what type and level of impact is realistic to seek to achieve, it will be hard to formulate clear result-oriented action plans and progress will continue to be hard to measure.” Page 2
One can only measure progress to PCD objectives if one has…: • …PCD objectives. • Existing objectives are process- instead of result-oriented (i.e. “taking into account”, “creating mechanisms”, …) • What is needed is managing expectations: • Baseline: what are the effects of policy X on developing countries today? • Objectives: how should the effects of policy X have changed by year Y? • Next step: how to know whether this happens? (i.e. defining indicators and information needs) Page 3
Chickens and Eggs? • Setting PCD objectives and then measure effects? • Or measure first to be able to better define objectives? • … low investments in research and measurement partly explain the limited progress in clarifying objectives • Some issues worth further exploring for measurement relate to what is measured, how it is done, and who does it Page 4
What to measure? • Inputs (actions, opportunities): direct actions and inputs, e.g. a decision to review a policy, a new mechanism [e.g.: review of the EU’s fisheries policy] • Outputs (changes in policies): actual changes in policies, or changes at the policy implementation level [e.g.: stricter human rights conditions in fisheries agreements] • Outcomes (‘effects’ in developing countries): what has 'changed' in developing countries and does it have anything to do with the policies? [e.g.: decreased overfishing in LDCs] Once objectives are set, indicators could be formulated at these levels Page 5
How to measure? Types and timing 1. Before (Ex-ante): analysing economic, environmental and social effects of proposed policy, outlines potential synergies and trade-offs 2. After (Ex-post): evaluations addressing PCD, either commissioned by the leading ministry or as part of development cooperation evaluation 3. Continuous (programming and monitoring): Country Strategy Papers for development cooperation can identify key policies, monitoring can be done at HQ and/or field level Page 6
How to measure? (2) • Theory-based, or use existing data, or gather new data • Data can be quantitative or qualitative • Currently insufficient research, hence (?) discussions on PCD mainly stress the ‘mission impossible’ aspect • Causal chains are complex (a change in policy in an OECD country having something to do with well-being of farmers in country X), best use a mix of methods • Better operationalisation of development objectives also needed (what is ‘contributing to poverty reduction’?) Page 7
Who does the measuring? • Ongoing: preparation of the OECD strategy on development, exploration of country case studies by the DAC, and attempts to make progress at national level (SE, NL, IE) • EC has made tentative progress in impact assessments looking at effects of policy options on developing countries (e.g. agriculture, fisheries) • The CDI has been active since 2003, NGOs like Fairpolitics EU invest in case studies • ECDPM is doing a study for BMZ and DGIS to explore next steps for PCD monitoring and comparisons between countries Page 8
Questions for discussion • Getting the overview: which countries have invested in specific studies or are trying to get a national monitoring process going? • Who (pays)? Line ministries (referee + player?), development ministry (PCD police?), independent evaluation body (e.g. UK or SE)? • Unclear PCD results: how do OECD members justify investments? • Can the DAC peer-reviews be improved to ensure a more detailed analysis of the results of PCD efforts (now process-oriented), e.g. in the field studies? • Busan outcome document: will the new Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation work on this? Page 9
European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) Onze Lieve Vrouweplein 21 NL 6211 HE Maastricht The Netherlands Tel: 011 31 43 350 2900 Fax: 011 31 43 350 2902 Website: http://www.ecdpm.org

More Related Content

Promoting Policy Coherence for Development: Exploring new opportunities for measurement

  • 1. Promoting Policy Coherence for Development Exploring new opportunities for measurement Niels Keijzer PCD focal points meeting OECD, 9 February 2012
  • 2. A blast from the past? • 2007: Joint-evaluation of EU mechanisms promoting Policy Coherence for Development • What impact of mechanisms? changed sector policies, improved reporting on PCD, increased levels of awareness…no common view • “In the absence of a clearly stated view of what type and level of impact is realistic to seek to achieve, it will be hard to formulate clear result-oriented action plans and progress will continue to be hard to measure.” Page 2
  • 3. One can only measure progress to PCD objectives if one has…: • …PCD objectives. • Existing objectives are process- instead of result-oriented (i.e. “taking into account”, “creating mechanisms”, …) • What is needed is managing expectations: • Baseline: what are the effects of policy X on developing countries today? • Objectives: how should the effects of policy X have changed by year Y? • Next step: how to know whether this happens? (i.e. defining indicators and information needs) Page 3
  • 4. Chickens and Eggs? • Setting PCD objectives and then measure effects? • Or measure first to be able to better define objectives? • … low investments in research and measurement partly explain the limited progress in clarifying objectives • Some issues worth further exploring for measurement relate to what is measured, how it is done, and who does it Page 4
  • 5. What to measure? • Inputs (actions, opportunities): direct actions and inputs, e.g. a decision to review a policy, a new mechanism [e.g.: review of the EU’s fisheries policy] • Outputs (changes in policies): actual changes in policies, or changes at the policy implementation level [e.g.: stricter human rights conditions in fisheries agreements] • Outcomes (‘effects’ in developing countries): what has 'changed' in developing countries and does it have anything to do with the policies? [e.g.: decreased overfishing in LDCs] Once objectives are set, indicators could be formulated at these levels Page 5
  • 6. How to measure? Types and timing 1. Before (Ex-ante): analysing economic, environmental and social effects of proposed policy, outlines potential synergies and trade-offs 2. After (Ex-post): evaluations addressing PCD, either commissioned by the leading ministry or as part of development cooperation evaluation 3. Continuous (programming and monitoring): Country Strategy Papers for development cooperation can identify key policies, monitoring can be done at HQ and/or field level Page 6
  • 7. How to measure? (2) • Theory-based, or use existing data, or gather new data • Data can be quantitative or qualitative • Currently insufficient research, hence (?) discussions on PCD mainly stress the ‘mission impossible’ aspect • Causal chains are complex (a change in policy in an OECD country having something to do with well-being of farmers in country X), best use a mix of methods • Better operationalisation of development objectives also needed (what is ‘contributing to poverty reduction’?) Page 7
  • 8. Who does the measuring? • Ongoing: preparation of the OECD strategy on development, exploration of country case studies by the DAC, and attempts to make progress at national level (SE, NL, IE) • EC has made tentative progress in impact assessments looking at effects of policy options on developing countries (e.g. agriculture, fisheries) • The CDI has been active since 2003, NGOs like Fairpolitics EU invest in case studies • ECDPM is doing a study for BMZ and DGIS to explore next steps for PCD monitoring and comparisons between countries Page 8
  • 9. Questions for discussion • Getting the overview: which countries have invested in specific studies or are trying to get a national monitoring process going? • Who (pays)? Line ministries (referee + player?), development ministry (PCD police?), independent evaluation body (e.g. UK or SE)? • Unclear PCD results: how do OECD members justify investments? • Can the DAC peer-reviews be improved to ensure a more detailed analysis of the results of PCD efforts (now process-oriented), e.g. in the field studies? • Busan outcome document: will the new Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation work on this? Page 9
  • 10. European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) Onze Lieve Vrouweplein 21 NL 6211 HE Maastricht The Netherlands Tel: 011 31 43 350 2900 Fax: 011 31 43 350 2902 Website: http://www.ecdpm.org