African Community of Practice Managing for Development Results April 2008
ONLINE
A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results
In this issue: Update Report: A frica – Asia Paci fic CoP Experience and Possible Linkages Asian CoP-MfDR
Up-com ing Events
This ONLINE is a monthly newsletter that provides a forum for members of the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results (AfCoPMfDR) and other interested parties to share experiences, discuss issues, and post upcoming events. ONLINE is available in English and French on the African CoP website, www.cop-mfdr-africa.org.
Update In March six members of the Core Management Team, -- Zaam Ssali, Uganda; Dev Ruhee, Mauritius; Solomon Mhlanga, Zimbabwe; Claude Kakule, Congo; Tamirat Yacob,
CoP Library
Ethiopia; and Sylvester Obong’o, Kenya -- attended the OECD-DAC Joint Venture on Managing for Development Results (JV-MfDR) in Paris. Representatives from the Asian and
Join Us
Latin American and the Caribbean Communities of Practice on MfDR were also invited. Prior to the JV meetings, the CoP representatives had two days of informal meetings which were geared at familiarizing them with the work of the JV-MfDR, briefing them on the upcoming meetings and to give them a chance to get to know each other and the MfDR related work they are doing. The JV agenda item that generated the most interest among the CoP representatives was the Preparation for the Accra High Level Forum (HLF3). Discussion focused on how to ensure the CoPs are well represented at Accra (who would be invited from the CoPs & how delegates were selected for each country), how the CoPs could have a strong voice at the Accra, would it be possible to have a joint meeting of the CoPs, and how to influence the Accra agenda. Due to the logistical challenges of holding a joint CoP meeting prior to the HLF3, CoP members concluded that it would be best to find time within the HLF3 agenda and share their work with the delegates of the larger conference. In addition to the two rounds of CoP meetings, the African CoP members had one informal meeting initiated by Doug Barnett from the AfDB. The topic was an up-coming African meeting to prepare for Accra. The AfCoP members strategized on how to have their voice represented and to prepare for this meeting. Members agreed to take the following steps: 1.
use the voices of CoP members who will be invited to this event,
2.
prepare a short document describing the AfCoP and its action plan that can be used to inform people about the work of the AfCoP.
In addition, members indicated a preference for holding the next annual CoP meeting after Accra in October or November.
April 2008, Issue No4
Contact Us
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
Forum ~ Experience from across the Continent This section offers an opportunity for CoP members to share their experiences. For this issue, we are featuring an article submitted to the Shanghai International Program for Development Evaluation Training, October 22nd November 2nd, 2007 at the Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Center, Shanghai, P.R. China by Core Management Team member Richard Ssweakiryanga. We encourage you to contact us at sdaunt@worldbank.org if you are interested in submitting a story for an up-coming newsletter. We welcome and look forward to additional contributions from all members.
Can Public Sector Management Reforms create Public Value? Experiences in Setting up a National Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy for Uganda By Richard Ssewakiryanga, Core Management Team (Africa - Community of Practice); Team Leader, Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Introduction This paper reflects on the changing concepts in public sector management and uses a case study from Uganda to reflect on the efficacy of the public value model. The Uganda case study focuses on the efforts undertaken by the Uganda Government to move beyond the New Public Management (NPM) models to the Public Value model. The paper briefly maps the changing landscape of public sector reforms. The case study of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy illustrates the changes undertaken by Uganda Government and the paper ends with reflections on selected issues that are outstanding and need to be considered when working with the Public Value Model. Public Sector Reforms in Africa African countries emerged from the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) era of the 1980s both strained and scorched by several reforms in public sector management. The call for downsizing of Government sought to reduce the role of the State in business as well as service delivery. Governments were encouraged to deregulate public enterprises and ensure that they are run like private sector businesses (World Bank 1989). The emphasis of this shift in public sector management was on maintaining macro economic stability, lowering inflation, cutting deficit spending, and reducing the scope and cost of government (Therkildsen, O. 2001). The reforms were therefore related to the functioning and role of the state in the economic sphere. Many of these reforms produced several benefits especially in the area of macro economic stability and the reduction of inflation. However, the exit of the state from the social sectors led to several detrimental impacts on social services like health, education and the provision of water. Lessons of experience have therefore shown some limitations of the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) of the 1980s, and have pointed to the need to broaden the agenda of public sector reforms. It is now being acknowledged that States with weak public sector institutions are not well prepared to face the adjustment costs of global competitiveness. Without complementarities between domestic strategies for institutional reform and strategies for opening up to global market forces, African countries risk exposing themselves to the kinds of protracted crises that characterized the 1980s. In light of the above, emerging consensus is that, despite the need to reduce the role of the public sector, there is a need to increase the capacity of the State. To do this, a variety of NPM-inspired measures are used, including the refocusing of public-sector functions through staff reductions and changes in
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
budgetary allocations; restructuring of public organizations through the reorganization of ministries; decentralizing, de-linking central government functions from local governments or the private sector; emphasis on private sector styles of management practice and introduction of competition in service provision; explicit standards and measures of performance; greater transparency; pay reform; and emphasis on outputs (Therkildsen, 2001). It is these kinds of reforms that have led to the introduction of the NPM models in several public sector institutions in Africa. Emergence of the New Public Management (NPM) Reforms NPM reforms focus on ensuring that public sector institutions are managed in a manner that allows for both economic and social benefits (UNDP 1995). New Public Management (NPM) is now a label used to describe a management culture that emphasizes the centrality of the citizen or customer, as well as accountability for results. In a nutshell - it is a set of broadly similar administrative doctrines, which dominated the public administration reform agenda of most OECD countries from the late 1970s (Hood, 1991; Pollitt, 1993; Ridley, 1996). It captures most of the structural, organizational and managerial changes taking place in the public services and a bundle of management approaches and techniques borrowed from the private-for-profit sector. NPM shifts the emphasis from traditional public administration to public management, pushing the state towards ‘managerialism' (Economic Commission for Africa 2003). The main hypothesis in the NPMreform wave is that more market orientation in the public sector will lead to greater cost-efficiency for governments, without having negative side effects on other objectives and considerations. (Wikipedia, 2006). Limits of New Public Management (NPM) Over the years, the practice of the new public management has been found to have some limitations. Gavin K et. al, (undated) provides a useful list of limitations. The authors note that New Public Management (NPM):
focuses on improving functionally defined services rather than meeting the overall service needs of different client groups; is pre-disposed towards piecemeal improvement rather than larger scale innovations tends to promote micro-management and reduced discretion for front-line workers with high costs created by detailed inspection by the centre and lacks attention to democratic engagement with citizens and stakeholder groups
A suggested model for public sector reform that moves beyond the limitations of the NPM model is the Public Value Model (PVM). Under PVM there is a recognition that, in addition to well functioning markets, successful liberal democracies require strong and effective Governments able to guarantee fair treatment, equal opportunities, access to a range of key services, and to act as a steward of a country’s interests within and across generations. This renewed focus on the potential role of Government is what Uganda is working with in its new National Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The Public Value Model and New Management Reforms Public Value refers to the value created by government through services, laws, regulation and other actions. The PVM model is based on the argument that all governments should want to maximize ‘public value added’; that is the benefits of government action when weighed against the costs (Gavin K et. al, undated). The PVM proposes that as a general rule the key things which citizens value tend to fall into
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
three categories: outcomes, services and trust. These overlap to some extent. However they provide a useful way of thinking about the dimensions of public value. The model also assumes that value and values are closely linked. Seen through the lens of public value, the ethos and values of any public sector organization, service provider or profession must be judged by how appropriate they are to the creation of value: better outcomes, services and trust. Inappropriate values may lead to the destruction of public value. It is important to note that although this concept has been used widely in several institutions especially in Britain it is based on Mark Moore’s book ‘Creating Public Value’ (1995). Moore’s book was published in the mid 1990s as part of the debate about public service reform. As such, it stands as a counterargument to the notions of NPM. While NPM focused on transferring the administrative practices of the private sector to the public sector, Moore instead focuses on what might constitute ‘public’ value, in other words, how the working practices of public servants might contribute to particular sorts of benefits found only in public services. Moore uses several examples in his book but an interesting one is on the library. He argues that public value in a library might simply be new public services (extended library opening hours); increased trust in public institutions, (“I trust my library service more”) or a contribution to an established public good (“the library is open longer so I can read more books and be better educated”), (Moore, Mark 1995:35). As such the model foregrounds three important concepts - services, trust and outcomes that are produced by Government. Using Public Value in Uganda’s Monitoring and Evaluation Reform Process Several Evaluations (Government of Uganda 2006a) of the Government of Uganda M&E framework pointed to 7 critical bottlenecks that need to be negotiated around before Government could achieve a results focus in the public sector. These included: •
•
• • •
•
•
An inadequate performance-based public management culture: Effective M&E must be demanddriven, requiring a performance based management culture, with planning and management of public service delivery processes based on long term objectives. Wrong incentive structures: Program and sectoral reporting tends to focus on inputs and activities to justify budget expenditures, rather than on outcomes and progress towards development goals; the underlying reward system provides weak linkages between resource allocation and actual performance. Inefficient M&E coordination arrangements: Multiple M&E arrangements have developed over the years, resulting in wasteful duplication and repetition of efforts. Limited flow of relevant information: Although M&E capacity is developing, the coordination of information to, from and between decision makers remains weak. Lack of conceptual clarity on measurements and M&E concepts: Definitional differences in basic concepts and terminology of different M&E systems have diminished the usefulness of data produced. Inadequate integration of data collection systems: Interfaces between sectoral and program management information systems are non-existent, despite often having the same client base; lack of harmonized structures and mechanisms for information flow and feed back has led to duplication of effort and waste of resources. Gaps in information and underused information: M&E requires a comprehensive information base, but numerous data and informational gaps still exist in Uganda.
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
The decision to implement results based monitoring and evaluation of all public sector investments was therefore in recognition of the fact that an important task of government is to serve citizens through the creation of services that citizens value. The government also recognized that the current systems of service delivery, even after implementing the NPM model, were slow and focus mainly on bureaucratic accountability rather than accountability that the citizens of Uganda. The Government therefore decided to develop a much more result orientated monitoring and evaluation system that is based on a commitment to improved, integrated and efficient public service delivery. The National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy In 2003, Cabinet approved a coordination framework to ensure that all government programs are conducted and evaluated in a rational and synchronized manner. This coordination framework is now supported by a National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy, or the NIMES. The proposed integrated process encompasses all efforts aimed at information gathering, dissemination and usage with respect to the delivery of government’s intended goals and policy objectives, as laid out in the national policy framework. The NIMES is therefore an effort in achieving excellence in public sector performance through management of the public sector for development results. The operational framework for the NIMES entails continuous observations of inputs, activities and processes, outputs, reach and outcomes at the constituent systems’ level, with feedback between and within each system. The focus is on three main development areas of: enhancing the policy environment for M&E usage, strengthening M&E skills throughout the government, and developing the physical infrastructure necessary to support the demands for M&E information. NIMES has been marketed not as a new M&E system but as a coordination mechanism that covers all existing M&E systems from a country-wide, sector-wide and local government perspective to reduce duplication and enhance timeliness, data quality and actual use of M&E information. There are five objectives that this system focuses on are: (Government of Uganda 2006b): 1. To ensure that a sound evidence base is available to inform decision-making in national policy frameworks; 2. To ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources in the implementation of strategic priorities; 3. To enhance M&E capacity in Uganda; 4. To ensure that key stakeholders’ have a forum for articulating data and information needs; and 5. To coordinate M&E initiatives in Uganda by providing mechanisms which align the existing M&E initiatives with identified data and information needs. Whilst NIMES is a reform process in itself, its development and successful implementation also supports other cross-cutting reform processes. Through building a foundation for evidence-based decision-making, NIMES contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency in implementing the national planning framework for the Government. Is the creation of Public Value therefore Empty Rhetoric or Serious Policy Work? Reflecting on the above challenges one recognizes that Uganda is still faced with 3 critical bottlenecks in the development of a public value paradigm. The following are some of the critical issues and lessons learnt:
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
Dependence on Donor Funding: Development Partner’s influence in the making and shaping of the public sector policy is not a small matter in Uganda. The national budget is financed up to 40% by donors. This makes donor institutions critical players in the implementation of policies. Since public value is about efficiency in resource management as well as responding to citizen preferences, there is always a tension that has to be resolved between the Government and the donors. For example, although the Government clearly knows that in areas like agriculture most farmers prefer some kind of Government subsidy, is reluctant to implement such a policy decision because several donors would not agree to finance it. In this case the tension is created between what the national government can do and what the donors can do. For those trying to create a responsive government this is a bottleneck that needs to be resolved in the creation of public value. Limits to Decentralization: One of the central elements in the changing role of the public sector is the concept of decentralization (Hope, 2002). Decentralization can be defined as the transfer of authority or responsibility for decision making, planning, management, or resource allocation from the central government to its field units, district administrative units, local government, regional or functional authorities, semi autonomous public authorities, private entities and non-governmental organizations. Highly centralized forms of governance have been blamed for the generation of administrative pathologies including communication overload, response times, filtering and distortion of information, a failure to grasp spatial connections in sectoral programming, and so on. But in Uganda, the decentralized local governments are expanding at a rapid speed because of the political negotiations and lobbying with several local politicians preferring the creation of new local governments. This rate of expansion is creating a strain on the way public value is created especially because of the variations in the quality of local governance as well as the level of service delivery within each part of the country. In situations where the local governments are varied the central government has got to do a lot of marketing of such concepts. Currently there is little dialogue within the framework of NIMES on the issue of results M&E and public value concepts within a decentralized framework. Links between Policy Actions to National Objectives: A key challenge for M&E in Uganda is to link what the country wants to achieve to what government actually does. Having recognized that the foundation of results-oriented M&E is clarity of goals, the government and its civil society and external partners revised the national planning framework with attention to refining intermediate-term goals and targets at the output and outcome levels that apply to Uganda’s poverty eradication efforts. This, in turn, provided a basis for further strengthening the results orientation of budget allocations and ministries’ work planning. Implementation of this revised plan shows that there are still several gaps in the implementation process that need to be clarified and for public value creation it is important that what the government says is linked to what it does since trust is a cornerstone to the achievement of public value. Conclusion Clearly, there have been several conceptual and practical shifts in public sector reforms in Uganda. All the reforms have brought new learning to the public sector management arena. However, what is clear is that as reforms are rolled out they need to consider several issues and this paper is a contribution that allows public sector institutions to reflect on what the possibilities are within the current framework of public value. In the case of Public value, negotiated dialogues with donor is crucial to achieving better outcomes, strengthening decentralization will help to improve service delivery and implementing policy
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
actions will create trust. Solving the three challenges above will ultimately achieving the three elements of public value – outcomes, services and trust. Citations Gavin Kelly, Geoff Mulgan and Stephen Muers (undated) Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service reform, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, www.strategy.gov.uk Government of Uganda (2006a) The National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy Framework, Office of the Prime Minister, Kampala, Uganda Government of Uganda (2006b) Poverty Eradication Action Plan, 2004/5-20087/8, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Kampala, Uganda Hood, C. (1991) ‘A Public Management for All Seasons’, Public Administration, 69 (1) Hope, K.R. (2001) The New Public Management: Context and Practice in Africa, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2. Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience, 2nd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford Ridley, F. (1996) ‘The New Public Management in Europe: Comparative Perspectives’, Public Policy and Administration, 11 (1) Therkildsen, O. (2001) ‘Efficiency, Accountability and Implementation, Public Sector Reform in East and Southern Africa’, Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper, Number 3, UNRISD. Geneva. World Bank (1989) World Bank Development Report, World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank (1992) Governance and Development, World Bank, Washington, DC
Asian CoP-MfDR We invite all members of the African CoP to take part in our current discussion, which began in late September. To read a summary of our online discussions, to see more information about the 2008 discussion series, and to register to become a member, please visit: cop-mfdr.adb.org.
Up-coming Events JV Meeting on Managing for Development Results Members of the Core Management Team will be attending the OECD-DAC Joint Venture on MfDR meeting in June. They will be participating in the planning process for the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF3), which will take place in Ghana the beginning of this September. If you know of any up-coming MfDR events and would like to have them included in this listing, please contact Sheila Daunt Escandon at sdaunt@worldbank.org.
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG
Online: A newsletter about the African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results April 2008, Issue No. 4
African CoP Library We are continuing to collect resources that will be posted on the African CoP website. If your department, organization, or colleagues have recently written anything that you would like to share with your fellow CoP members, please contact Sheila Daunt Escandon at sdaunt@worldbank.org.
Join Us If you are interested in becoming a member of the African Community of Practice, please visit our website, www.cop-mfdr-africa.org and submit a request to join.
Contact Us If you have any questions, comments or suggestions in regards to either this newsletter or the Africa CoP, please feel free to contact sdaunt@worldbank.org or any team leader within the Core Management Team (CMT): • • • • •
Networking, Recognition, and Sustainability -- Peter Ssentongo, Uganda: peter.sentongo@nimes.go.ug or peter.ssentongo@gmail.com Decentralization and Membership -- Zaam Ssali, Uganda: zaam.ssali@gmail.com or zssali@yahoo.com Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, and Publicity -- Ali Doungou Boubacar, Niger: doungouali@yahoo.fr Capacity Building -- Solomon Mhlanga, Zimbabwe: solo9088@yahoo.com Monitoring and Evaluation -- Claude Kakule, Congo: claudeK@unops.org or claudekakule@yahoo.com
WWW .COP-MFDR-AFRICA.ORG