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.
The session entitled “The Role of Impact Evaluations in Development Agencies” was held on January 15, 2008 and was chaired by Roland Kyle Peters Director of Operations Policy and Country Services at the World Bank in lieu of Jeff Gutman. Panel members included Richard Manning Chair of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Frank Wiebe, Chief Economist in the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Milagros Hernando, Director General of Development Policy and Planning in the Spanish Ministry of Foreign affairs and Cooperation, and Alan Gelb, Director, Development Policy, Development Economics at the World Bank.
Peters opened the discussion, highlighting four issues that the panel members would seek to address: 1) how strategic priorities for strategic impact evaluations are determined; 2) what incentives exist within their organizations; 3) the mechanics of how they work with the government and other partners to conduct input, and; 4) how results affect the policy and the operational work of their institutions.
Manning was the first to speak, joining the discussion from Paris. He opened by applauding the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Network’s initiative to employ impact evaluation for policy making. He stressed the importance of timing and being able to present valid arguments and results to parliaments and ministerial bodies for increased investment in international assistance. Manning argued for a clear results framework, which he said requires access to good information, statistics and data. He explained that despite the need for improvement in this area there has been a more coordinated international approach to help developing countries in this respect. Regarding impact evaluation, Manning stated that it was important to keep in mind there is not one appropriate methodology or standard approach.
Wiebe discussed the MCC’s initiatives on impact evaluation and how it has been integrated it into their model. He admitted that since the institution is very new he could not provide much information relative to the evaluations they are currently involved in. Wiebe’s presentation focused primarily on the MCC’s background. He discussed the organization’s origins, their institutional objectives, how their model affects their approach to impact evaluation, how they determine their priorities for impact evaluation, and the incentives and use of the results. He stressed that the MCC only provides core funding to developing countries who qualify under good governance standards, so as to encourage good governance reforms. The MCC agrees to provide development assistance and wants to ensure that their investments have a well documented impact, he said. Wiebe discussed the incentives for doing impact evaluations, stating that there is a commitment to the economic rate of return analysis for every project. This is used as a strong guide for their investment decisions. He concluded with four lessons from their experiences to date.
Milagros Hernando joined the panel from Madrid. She discussed and outlined the Spanish Development Corporation’s four major pillars of public policy: 1) to build a consensus based public policy; 2) to increase the quantity of aid; 3) to improve the quality of aid, and; 4) to maintain an active Spanish presence internationally regarding support of the International Development Agenda.
Gelb’s presentation focused on where the Bank is in terms of impact evaluation. He noted that the number evaluations has increased significantly, and that the Bank is now working on more than 120 impact evaluations versus less than 40 in 2004. Gelb also pointed that roughly a third of the projects the Bank was evaluating were not being funded by the Bank. He noted that the Bank initially started out working with middle income countries (MICs) but has shifted to an intensive focus on low income countries. Gelb highlighted the more difficult questions and issues relating to impact evaluations, and stated that the bottom line is that impact evaluation is growing rapidly and will have positive effects on simple monitoring and evaluation. Looking forward, he stated that the next step was developing mechanisms to increase assessment frameworks
In the question and answer session audience members asked for a concrete example of a projected rate of return on an evaluation, and how some of the evidence about utilization could be introduced into the current discussion, among other things.
Home
> Learning
& Knowledge > BSPAN
> Presentation
High Speed
Low Speed
