Go to the id21 home page   ID21 - communicating development research
Global Issues
 
Search the whole id21 database
 

Help page and other search methods
    id21 Global Issues
  Population change
  Food security
  Climate change
  Gender
  Poverty
  Human rights
  Global economy
  Governance
  Aid
  Conflict
and emergencies
  Tourism
 
    id21 Health
 
    id21 Education
 
    id21 Urban Development
 
    id21 Natural Resources
 
    id21 Rural Development
 
    id21 Home page
 
    Gender and Violence in African Schools
 
    id21 Publications
 
    id21 Viewpoints
 
    About id21
 
    Links
 
    Contact id21
 
    id21News
 
    id21 Insights
 
    id21 Media
 
     
Monitoring PRSPs: business as usual?

What distinguishes the process of developing Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) from previous approaches to development co-operation and concessional lending? What kinds of indicators are required for PRSP monitoring? What kinds of institutional arrangements and processes can contribute to learning and accountability around PRSPs?

A paper from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) reports findings from a study commissioned by the Poverty Monitoring Task Team of the Strategic Partnership with Africa. Drawing on evidence from four full and 17 interim PRSPs in sub-Saharan Africa and innovative practice elsewhere, it makes the case that design of monitoring arrangements should start from what a PRSP is meant to be and not from the established routines of the monitoring and evaluation profession.

PRSPs have led to a major increase in final poverty-outcome measurement, with new rounds of household surveys and plans for participatory poverty assessments. There is much less evidence of renewed interest in measuring the intermediate processes and achievements that will be necessary to produce the desired final outcomes. This is unfortunate as rapid feedback on this level of change is what matters most for accountability and learning.

Other key characteristics of PRSP monitoring noted by the report include:

  • the poor quality of the administrative reporting systems on which much of the relevant data depend
  • lack of attention to the possibility of using alternative methods to compensate for the unreliability of routine information systems
  • neglect of input monitoring
  • the failure of documents to specify how stakeholders will be incorporated into PRSP monitoring arrangements and how information will improve policy and implementation
  • PRSPs typically have a ‘missing middle’ – they do not discuss why the proposed actions are likely to work better than comparable actions have done in the past, and what are the critical things that need to happen.

The approach taken to monitoring and information issues needs to be more innovative to engage a wider range of stakeholders in policy dialogue about poverty reduction. The paper recommends that:

  • Service-delivery surveys and problem-oriented studies are useful complements to administrative data and should have a major place in PRSP monitoring arrangements.
  • The problem of lack of demand for poverty-related information must be tackled: the spread of FM radio and PRSP-inspired relationships between new advocacy groups and parliaments offer useful interim solutions to make PRSPs newsworthy and relevant.
  • Annual reviews of PRSPs should pay attention to variables that move relatively quickly and provide evidence of real achievements: thus donors striving to support PRSPs with general budget funding can make use of national systems, rather than creating parallel mechanisms, in regulating their disbursement of funds.
  • Commitments are to be believed only when they are actually reflected in budgetary allocations.
  • Successful institutional arrangements for PRSP monitoring are those that are well-supported politically and also permit swift executive action.

Source(s):
‘Good practice in the development of PRSP indicators and monitoring systems’, Working Paper 172, Overseas Development Institute, by David Booth and Henry Lucas, 2002 Full document.

Funded by: DFID (CNTR 01 2329)

id21 Research Highlight: 9 June 2003

Further Information:
David Booth
Poverty and Public Policy Group
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0)207 922 0381/0386
Fax: +44 (0)207 922 0399
Contact the contributor: d.booth@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Henry Lucas
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1273 678740
Contact the contributor: H.Lucas@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
'IMF/World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy: effective, participatory and locally owned?'

'PRSPs investigated: structural adjustment in another guise?'

'Poverty reduction in the Americas: on course to deliver debt relief?'

'Poverty reduction strategies in LDCs: repeating past mistakes?'

Eldis provides a useful resource on PRSPs

More from the PRSP Document Library

See the World Bank site on poverty reduction strategies and PRSPs

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Unless stated otherwise articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged.

Copyright © 2007 id21. All rights reserved.

Week beginning Monday 1st September 2008
FREE Information Delivery services from id21:
Get updates by email: id21 news
Insights: research digests
Contact id21

 

 

Go to the Overseas Development Institute, UK site.

 

 

Go to the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK site.