Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 100 Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD Mandate and Institutional Alignment Design Monitoring Index Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

7. 100 Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD Process monitoring index Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

8. 100 Mandate Structure Outputs Outreach M&E Sub Nat. Sector Internat. Civic Donors Design phase goals 6 month check 12 month check Recommendation 1: Use Charter of Good Practice at the Design Stage of the PPD Stated objectives 12 month process score 6 month process score Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

9. Recommendation 2: Apply M&E LogicalFramework during PPD Implementation • 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 Inputs Outputs Outcomes Impact Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 Monitoring and Evaluation of Public-Private Dialogues