Impact evaluations assess the degree to which a particular policy, program or policy has affected the well-being of individuals. They can play a tremendous role in making effective policy and necessitate a larger discussion in the context of efforts to improve development effectiveness. On January 15 to 16 2008 the conference “Making Smart Policy: Using Impact Evaluation for Policy Making” was held at the World Bank Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The conference was organized by the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM), Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), and Development Economics (DEC) networks of the World Bank, with co-sponsorship by DFID and the Government of the Netherlands.
Danny Leipziger, Vice President and Head of Network for the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network (PREM) introduced and chaired the first session of the conference, held on January 15, 2008. Graham Wheeler, Managing Director of Networks, delivered the opening speech. He reminded the attendees that the mid-point for the Millennium Development goals deadline was quickly approaching. He noted that although aid flow has stagnated, the pressure on the development community to deliver on aid commitments remains high. At the same time, he said, important questions are being raised about aid effectiveness. Wheeler said that ensuring gains on this agenda requires increased progress in defining, measuring and tracking results. He admitted that there were no illusions about the challenges. The results agenda, Wheeler said, raises complex issues about effective policy design and implementation.
Wheeler commented that Impact Evaluation can help to attribute changes and outcomes to specific interventions. He said that the right mix of political will, incentives and institutional structure is needed for all evidenced based policy analysis. Wheeler gave his thoughts, briefly, on each of these. He noted that Impact Evaluations require significant time commitment and are expensive. He also noted that it is necessary to engage policy makers from the start. Evaluators need to walk a fine line, engaging the policy makers to ensure support and interest, but always maintaining enough distance to preserve impartiality. Wheeler also said that incentives matter, and cited the example of how President Uribe of Columbia used Impact Evaluation of a conditional cash transfer to expand coverage of previous governments programs. He also stated that Impact Evaluations shouldn’t be seen as a tool for making qualitative judgments once a project is completed. Rather, they should become part of the learning process and promote experimentation and evolution. Wheeler concluded by noting that the World Bank is currently supporting over 120 Impact Evaluations. He emphasized that they would like to continue to be more involved in this realm. He then briefed the audience on the structure of the conference over the following days.
Next, Leipziger introduced the panel, which featured Ad Melkert, Associate Administrator, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and Vinod Thomas, Director General of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) at the World Bank. Nancy Birdsall, President, Center for Global Development was also originally on the panel but was unable to attend. Leipziger provided a brief overview of the nature of evaluations. Regarding the Bank’s own efforts, Leipziger noted the increased efforts in enhancing development effectiveness.
Melkert opened his presentation by underscoring the importance of what Impact Evaluations can deliver. He noted that the UNDP has been working with country program evaluations over longer periods of time and supports proposals to increase evaluations. Development effectiveness will be even more important in the future than it has become over the past 10 years, he said. With regard to the conference, Melkert named costs, times, and relevance as key challenges to be addressed and recommended not jumping to conclusions on these issues. He identified and discussed a few crucial sequence and context factors which should not be seen in isolation. These included the need for systemic assessment, to address alternatives, for critical judgment of aid actors, and the need for more homegrown evaluations in strengthening the role of Impact Evaluations. Melkert concluded his presentation by highlighting a final factor: the need to “call a spade a spade” regarding reporting; that is, not hiding behind big figures, or political correctness.
Thomas spoke next, re-emphasizing the necessity of going from actions to results. He asked how much progress had been made in the larger context of the remaining challenges. Thomas stated that Impact Evaluations are crucial to decision making, and discussed its various aspects, including cross-sectoral linkages at the country and institutional level. Among the remaining challenges he mentioned the need to make findings timely and to improve the effectiveness of cost efforts. He stated that what can be helpful for policy makers is seeing impact evaluation as part of a package.
Leipziger added some last comments and questions to conclude the panel, and then opened the floor to questions from the audience. Questions included whether there had been a formal survey in developing countries about the number and locations of specialized staff involved in Impact Evaluations, and as well as about the lack of Impact Evaluations for the agricultural sector.
Home
> Learning
& Knowledge > BSPAN
> Presentation
High Speed
Low Speed
