Evaluating Decentralization Flashcards
The role of indicators in monitoring
To be realistic, and enable appropriate planning, monitoring and evaluation frameworks need to carefully consider the institutional set up of the particular country or sector and the capacities of different actors involved in policymaking and implementation.
The starting point is to begin with the specific outcomes the government is trying to achieve in a particular sector and work back in the results chain to identify where are the main bottlenecks for policy implementation, and why. In this context, governments need to assess how central-local relations may affect (positively or negatively) the achievement of the outcomes it intends to achieve in a particular sector. On this basis, governments may choose an adequate mix of indicators and targets.
The challenge of ‘measuring’ decentralization
Decentralisation is often measured as the share of revenues and/or expenditures accounted for by local governments. This definition is only one side of the story. It ignores whether local governments have autonomy over fiscal matters, a critical prerequisite to achieve the benefits of decentralisation.
They must be completed by complementary approaches, including quantitative and qualitative indicators to determine the real magnitude of decentralisation, to correctly grasp the trends at play and to accurately assess its impacts and outcomes of decentralisation. Assessing the outcomes of decentralisation is far from straightforward due to the diversity and complexity of the decentralisation processes.
Essentially, assessing decentralisation outcomes and impacts requires being clear about what decentralisation is meant to achieve and against what it will be assessed.
Monitoring and evaluation frameworks (1)
Most countries are far from developing robust performance management systems that focus on outcomes rather than on inputs. Furthermore, monitoring results at local level and ensuring a regular flow of information on what happens on the ground appears to be a difficult task.
M&E and data collection systems at central, sector and local levels are often disconnected and do not inform each other. As a result, many countries, even those with fairly decentralised systems, lack operational mechanisms to collect local evidence on how national policies work out in practice, how citizens perceive issues of access and what is the quality of the services provided. Finally, there may be different information and monitoring systems for different dimensions of decentralisation that are the responsibility of different ministries. Thus, getting consolidated data on how decentralisation is performing is challenging. This is an obstacle to basing policy decisions on evidence, monitoring policy implementation risks and adopting corrective measures in useful time.
Monitoring and evaluation frameworks (2)
Monitoring and evaluating complex decentralisation processes may require using a mix of different types of (direct/indirect) indicators.
SPICED indicators (Subjective, Participatory, Interpreted, Crosschecked, Empowering and Diverse) are probably the ones that give more space for qualitative and participatory measures.
