Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Jesse Biddle

Center for International Development

State University of New York

And

Benjamin Herzberg

Investment Climate Unit

The World Bank

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Why Develop M&E Frameworks forPublic-Private Dialogues?

Donors are increasingly sponsoring PPDs:– National, Regional and Sector Business Forums– Investor Councils– Competitiveness Task Forces

Need to build knowledge of practices and to synthesize lessons learned

– Case-studies multiplying– Several comparative studies – Several reviews of donor experiences– Development of M&E frameworks important next step

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

What do M&E Frameworks ProvidePPD Sponsors and Participants?

M&E frameworks provide an objective base from which to assess program performance

M&E frameworks provide a foundation and inputs for the management of PPD programs

The use of M&E frameworks over time facilitates learning processes—within and across programs and among donors

M&E frameworks also provide the basis for accountability in the use of funds and to the public

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

PPD Programs: Complications for M&EFrameworks

Knowledge needed to construct M&E logical framework is not fully in-hand at program design stage

Participants in PPDs debate over and may refine activities, outputs and outcomes – that is, participants take program “ownership” seriously

PPDs commonly strive to achieve both “hard” outcomes (e.g., reform of a law) and “soft” outcomes (e.g. build policy reform networks, increase social capital)- “Soft” outcomes can be measured but it may be difficult

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design stage of the PPD

PPDs are process-oriented programs. The Charter of Good Practice identifies a check-list of process, structure and function issues to consider when designing a PPD:

Mandate and Institutional Alignment Structure and ParticipationOutputs and ImpactsMonitoring and EvaluationSub-National RoleSector Specific RoleInternational RolePost-Conflict ConsiderationsDonor Roles and Responsibilities

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD

Mandate and Institutional Alignment Design Monitoring Index

Designphasegoals

6 month check

12 month check

100

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD

Process monitoring index

Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check

100

Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD

Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check

100

Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors

Stated objectives

6 month process score

12 month process score

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Logical frameworks help answer if a program achieved results and so inform consideration of different approaches and reexamination of guiding assumptions

– These frameworks are less helpful regarding how results were achieved and so less able to clarify how program performance can be improved

Recommendation 2: Apply M&E LogicalFramework during PPD Implementation

Outputs

Outcomes Impact Inputs

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 2: Apply M&E LogicalFramework during PPD Implementation

Engage participants in developing the M&E framework as a PPD activity

– Inputs: Donor funding, expertise and networks of participants– Outputs: Advisory services, training provided to key government

agencies (e.g., business registration agency)– Outcomes: Changes in laws, implementation of new

administrative procedures– Impact: Increased Rate of Business Registration (less informality)

Ensure periodic review and revision of the M&E framework by participants as a PPD activity

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Recommendation 3: Use M&E ProcessFrameworks for Mid-Stream Correction

M&E Process Frameworks encourage greater learning as regards how program performance can be improved

Focus Group technique– Use of group discussion to collect information, clarify details and gather

opinions from diverse viewpoints– Can help validate insights in-hand as to program performance

Most Significant Change technique– Collection and synthesis of accounts of significant changes accomplished

by the program– Review and sharing of accounts helps generate lessons learned which can

be used by program participants, donors

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

How to use M&E Frameworks for PPDs?

Avoid making PPD too rigid by insisting on complete M&E Logical Framework at the design stage of program

Go with the flow – PPDs in which participants succeed in taking “ownership” perform better

– Participants can still be called on to apply M&E framework to the program

Budget for appropriate M&E tools for PPDs at the design stage of the program

– The IFC/World Bank, for example, suggest M&E budgets should be 3-5% of total program budget. This may need to be adjusted upwards for PPDs

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

Contact Information

Jesse BiddleCenter for International DevelopmentState University of New YorkPh. 518-443-5124 Email: jesse.biddle@cid.suny.edu

Benjamin HerzbergInvestment Climate UnitPrivate Sector DevelopmentThe World Bank GroupPh. 202-458-7846Email: bherzberg@worldbank.org