Document Library

Key Text Research on the Current State of PRS Monitoring Systems

Author: H Lucas, D Evans and K Pasteur
Date: 2004
Size: 70 pages (276 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

What are the key factors that determine the success or failure of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) monitoring efforts? Who should be involved? How should the information gathered be put to use? This study by the Institute of Development Studies reviews the main issues arising from the implementation of PRS monitoring systems. It draws on the experience of different countries and suggests possible monitoring approaches to suit specific contexts.

Success or failure of PRS monitoring depends on the personality, status and capabilities of a few key players. Involving key stakeholders is essential to ensure their contribution to the monitoring of the PRS. Although government views are reflected in PRS Papers, the priorities of ministries and other agencies might not be. Creating a technical secretariat with adequate capacity to carry out the basic and more detailed monitoring activities can reduce the burden on other agencies and help get their support. Labelling the monitoring process as a ‘high-status’ initiative can also ensure that key individuals and ministries are willing to be seen backing this effort.

Other relevant findings of the study are:

High-level committees can be created to bring key players on board. Such committees can play a coordinating and oversight role and leave the more testing activities to the technical secretariat.
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) need to be adequately involved in the process. If this goes beyond merely informing them of government plans, their involvement can add transparency and accountability to the monitoring effort.
Parliaments have played a minimal role in the monitoring of PRS. Yet, their involvement is a key component of a truly democratic framework.
Decentralisation processes need to be accompanied by local, as well as national, monitoring systems. Yet, whereas lack of capacity is a key constraint at national level, the problem is even more acute at local level.
‘Missing middle indicators’, which refer to how well intentioned policies will deliver promised outcomes/impacts, continue to be a concern. Given scarce resources, focusing on budget allocations and expenditure, as well as making better use of Routine Data Systems might be a possible solution.

Monitoring data is still primarily produced to meet donor requirements. Governments do not seem interested in developing data for their own purposes. In this context, donors need to:

Ensure that a broad range of stakeholders are involved in the monitoring efforts. This can contribute to country ownership of the process.
Avoid linking performance monitoring and donor funding as guiding principles for PRS implementation. Incentives to monitor can decrease if the identification of problems leads to funding cuts or termination.
Introduce specific incentives to ensure that monitoring data informs policy and budgetary policies. Decisions continue to be based on political and personal interests.
Build capacity within the PRS monitoring agencies to communicate and share monitoring data in a way that matches the needs and interests of different stakeholders.
Support the development of comparative and ranking indicators at various levels. This can facilitate dissemination and policy influence. It can also help persuade governments and CSOs of the value of the data produced.

Access full text: available online

Source: Lucas, H., Evans, D. and Pasteur, K., 2004, ‘Research on the Current State of PRS Monitoring Systems’, IDS Discussion Paper no. 382, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Author: Henry Lucas , h.lucas@ids.ac.uk
Institute of Development Studies , http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids