1 / 17

Managing for Results in Country Programming

Managing for Results in Country Programming. Managing for Results in Timor-Leste Rosa Alonso I Terme East Asia-Pacific Region. The LICUS Dilemmas. LICUS Countries face two difficult dilemmas:

john
Download Presentation

Managing for Results in Country Programming

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. Managing for Results in Country Programming

  2. Managing for Results in Timor-Leste Rosa Alonso I Terme East Asia-Pacific Region

  3. The LICUS Dilemmas • LICUS Countries face two difficult dilemmas: • They need “quick wins”/results the most for social stability and political credibility reasons, but … • They have the least capacity to deliver them and are often reluctant to work with civil society, which is seen as “competition” to the the new Government

  4. LICUS Dilemmas • LICUS countries: • Need to focus on institution-building, but • That often leads to unrealistic expectations on: • Timing--how quickly these institutions can be built • Design--the level of complexity of institutions

  5. LICUS Dilemmas • Focusing on (final) results/outcomes is important, but • Monitoring the sequence betweenpolicies/inputs—outputs—intermediate outcomes—final outcomes is key in low capacity environments

  6. Timor-Leste—Starting from Scratch • Prior to independence, planning was not a productive exercise for the Timorese, as their fate was dependent on others • Timor-Leste’s officials had very little (if any) experience in Government, and • Hence, it was crucial tostart from the beginning

  7. Timor-Leste—Plans, Budgets and Results • Timor-Leste’s Government started its operations with the goal of encouraging a practice and culture of : • Planning out agency/ministry programs (called annual action plans--AAPs) and • Linking plans with results • Line ministries produce annual action plans linked to budgets and sector strategies when they exist • …and, in some cases, the plans are also linked to outputs or intermediate outcomes

  8. Timor-Leste—Plans and Results • At the beginning, there were no sector strategies and hence AAPs played a crucial role in laying out agency programs to achieve results • However, the focus was mainly on planning activities, with the link to outputs and final outcomes being much more tenuous

  9. Timor-Leste--Monitoring • All ministries send their AAPs to the planning office of the Ministry of Finance • Who collects them and monitors them through quarterly monitoring reports • This instills discipline into the process

  10. Timor-Leste—Feeding Monitoring Results Back into Policy-Making • As usual, the weakest link is feeding monitoring results back into the policy-making process: • The capacity of MPF to assess/evaluate why some line ministries are (under)performing is weak and • The QRMs are not used in the budgeting process—hence the strength of the disciplining mechanism is undermined

  11. Looking Forward—Focus Scarce Capacity on Implementation • Substantial focus—need to shift scarce capacity from: • Emphasis on the legal framework and designing strategies, policies and sector investment programs (17!) to • Policy implementation, budget execution and the achievement of results

  12. Looking Forward--Planning • Decentralize planning--line ministries should take the lead in the AAP process • Increase focus on results—AAPs should increasingly focus on linking plans to outputs and outcomes and move away from micro-planning

  13. Moving Forward--Implementation • Improved implementation will require: • Building capacity—at line ministries, MPF and districts • Decentralization—planning, monitoring and expenditure management to line ministries (and execution to districts) • Delegation—decision-making is highly centralized, empowering mid-level managers would expedite implementation

  14. Moving Forward—Implementation II • Improved information flows, communication and coordination: • Among line ministries (e.g, Ministry of Public Works and Education) • Between line ministries and MPF • Between the center and the districts • Across management levels within ministries

  15. Moving Forward with Implementation—Contracting Out • A good possibility for using large resource availability to deliver results would be contracting out: • The management of whole low-performing ministries (accompanied with capacity-building and exit strategy) • The delivery of specific functions within ministries (e.g. PFM or delivery of school materials) …but it is unlikely the Government would be willing to explore these options

  16. Looking Forward--Monitoring • Monitoring systems: • Increasingly, MPF should focus on monitoring a core set of PRSP/NDP indicators and not the whole AAPs • Sector monitoring should be carried out by: • Line ministries and • Sector working groups of Government, donors (and, hopefully, civil society)

  17. Looking Forward—Feeding Monitoring Results into Policy-Making • Making better use of monitoring results--QRMs should feed into the budget process and sector policy reviews • Building capacity—need to build up monitoring and evaluation capacity in line ministries and at MPF • Enhancing demand for accountability—through improved dissemination of key information and involvement of civil society and Parliament in monitoring and evaluation

More Related