INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
With the objective of supporting the efforts made by the governments to ensure that their management produces the results expected by their citizens, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) created the Program for the Implementation of the External Pillar of the Medium-Term Plan of Action for Effectiveness in Development (PRODEV). The Program offers non-reimbursable resources and technical assistance to the countries that request it to improve their institutional capability to implement the Management for Development Results (MfDR).
One of the contributions of the program has been the development of the PRODEV Evaluation Tool (PET), whose purpose is to analyze the degree of progress and institutionalization of MfDR practices and instruments in the public sector. The PET is useful both to diagnose the institutional management capacity for development results and, thus, contribute the required elements to prepare an institutional improvement plan, and to follow up implementation of said plan.
The present version of the PET is an update of the methodology used during 2007-2009 and presented in the notebook Management for results in Latin America and the Caribbean: Progress and Challenges published by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2010. The objectives of this update are to 1) create a new baseline to carry out broader monitoring of the degree of development of the MfDR in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and, 2) provide a more didactic method for reviewing compliance of the conditions associated with an effective MfDR.
The purpose of this manual is to reveal the pillars, components, indicators, and requirements that are part of the analytical methodology of the PET and, thus, facilitate its use in reviewing public management systems. The manual can be used by both MfDR consultants and experts and by public managers with less experience in this area. To this end, it provides not only the necessary methodological elements for the application of the instrument, but also the most important concepts that are the basis of the analysis.
The PRODEV Evaluation Tool
Before proceeding to describe the different elements that constitute the PET, some of its concepts should be clarified. The MfDR is defined as “a management strategy that guides the action of development public actors to generate the greatest possible public value through the use of management tools that in a collective, coordinated, and complementarily manner, should be implemented by the public institutions to generate social changes with equity and sustainably on behalf of the population of a country.” At the core of the MfDR concept is the term public value, which refers to the changes –noticeable and quantifiable– generated by the State in answer to social needs or demands. Those changes represent the results that the public sector seeks to achieve.
As can be observed, the notion of result in MfDR is associated with the social changes produced by the actions of the State and not only with the activities or the products contributing to those changes, frequently taken as parameters to evaluate the governmental action.
The structure of the PET is based on the concept that there are five intervening elements in the process of public value creation, as follows: 1) results-based planning, 2) results-based budgeting, 3) financial management, audit, and procurement, 4) program and project management, and, 5) monitoring and evaluation (Figure 1). These elements, called pillars of the management cycle, are broken down in a set of components that describe the maturity of the institutional systems.
Figure 1: Pillars of the PET
In turn, the components consist of indicators and requirements that these systems should have in an MfDR environment (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Levels of Analysis of the PET
The indicators are qualified with a scale that goes from zero to five, in which five is the optimal situation. The components and the pillars are also qualified with the same scale.
Since the review of the management cycle is based on information on a wide spectrum of subjects, the PES focuses only on those aspects directly related with MfDR or that measure the capacity of MfDR. Thus, this instrument does not offer an analysis of each pillar with the depth and detail with which instruments specialized in a single topic are able to do.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PET
The PET questionnaire must be completed in its electronic format. The boxes to answer each requirement are designed in such a way that the evaluator may input all the information he/she considers pertinent to justify the qualification. It is important to take into account that the questions of the PET refer to the central government, not to the overall government, according to the definition in the Manual of Public Finance Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, 2001 (definitions available in Annex 2 of this document).
Answering the PET Questionnaire
The PET questionnaire must be answered for each and every one of the aforementioned requirements. Furthermore, to consider the PET questionnaire fully completed, it should include references (name and title of the persons interviewed and references of the cited documents) and a justification for each answer. The justifications, which should be at least a paragraph long, consist of objective and verifiable arguments, based on the cited sources, indicating whether or not a requirement has been met.
The questionnaire includes four types of requirements: those that verify compliance of a condition, those that indicate a percentage, the special cases, and those that request additional information.
Requirements that Measure Compliance
This is the predominant type of requirement in this questionnaire (Figure 3). The requirements that measure compliance specify the situation that must occur in order to be considered fulfilled. In addition, most of the cases include the possibility of partial compliance, thus they also specify the situation that must occur for them to be considered partially fulfilled. The justification should be focused in the aforementioned specific aspects in the requirement.