1 / 9

Synthesis of Responses to the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support

Synthesis of Responses to the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support. James Bianco Evaluation Department DFID. Introduction. May 2006 JEGBS Published Commissioned by consortium of over 20 donors and 7 partner govt’s under umbrella of DAC Network on Development Evaluation

barny
Download Presentation

Synthesis of Responses to the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Synthesis of Responses to the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support James Bianco Evaluation Department DFID

  2. Introduction • May 2006 JEGBS Published • Commissioned by consortium of over 20 donors and 7 partner govt’s under umbrella of DAC Network on Development Evaluation • 2 years to complete, cost $4 million, evaluated spending of $4 billion in 7 partner countries over 10 years • Agreed at 5th Meeting of DAC Evaluation Network a survey of Donors and Governments should take place one year after the JEGBS’s publication

  3. Who responded? • Survey completed by the people responsible for aid instruments/budget support policy and guidance in donor agencies; and by people from policy analysis departments or aid co-ordination units in partner country governments. • 19 donors responded (17 Bi-laterals, 2 Multi-laterals) • 3 Partner country governments

  4. SECTION 1 - How did donor organisations disseminate the evaluation and its recommendations?

  5. Of the 31 recommendations which did the donor organisations rate as the most important?

  6. Have any of the recommendations been incorporated into policy or operational documents?

  7. SECTION 2 – How did the country case study respondents disseminate the evaluation and its findings? • Only three respondents – approaches varied. • One was highly active – included a 2 day work shop with the consultants with Minister of Finance and Budget and sector ministries + mission to Mozambique to discuss aid management techniques • One had conference with donors + discourse over e-mail • One relatively inactive – though some bi-lateral discussions with donors.

  8. Where any of the recommendations deemed particularly important? • Two recommendations found to be equally important by two of the country respondents: • the “Need to develop medium to long term commitments to PGBS”; and • “Ensure full alignment of donor TA and support to PFM” • Other three highest ranking recommendations included: • “Further develop the mutual accountability framework and tidy up the conditionality content and process”; • “ Define sector policies clearly as frameworks for aligning all aid”; • “Prioritise analytical work to support linking PRSC policy activities to the Government’s Social Economic Development Plan”.

  9. Did the country governments notice any change in the donors approach to delivering PGBS subsequent to publication of JEGBS? Changes noted by two of the Country governments included: • Increased consultation when defining the terms of disbursements. • More flexibility in evaluations taking into account pressures on government. • More regular and franker high-level dialogue on the question of corruption. • Greater alignment to government regulations • Longer term financial commitments – helping the governments planning processes.

More Related