Table : Possible Benefits and Costs of In-house and Outsourced Appraisal Possible benefits Possible costs In-house appraisal Ownership of appraisal and hence an Risk of direct political and effective tool for strengthening the bureaucratic interference. gate-keeping function. Low quality of appraisal due to Less costly and timely delivery when gradual erosion of skills and capacity built and demand exists. expertise over time and lack of infusion of new talent within Multiple-level appraisal done at the government agencies. agency, line ministry, and MoF/MoP levels to facilitate follow-up project review, project adjustment, and implementation. Better quality due to technical Misaligned incentives leading to Outsourced appraisal competency and possible use of little or slow knowledge transfer outside expertise from the open between external hired agency market. and government departments and line ministries. Timely delivery as more appraisal teams may be engaged using open Costly and still not used if market resources to meet the demand demand for genuine appraisal of increased number of proposals in does not exist. the pipeline. Quality assurance may be difficult Direct political interference less likely. (that is, who reviews the appraisal by the hired agency). Authors Source: Establishing an Effective Mechanism for Monitoring and Ex-post Evaluation Weak monitoring during implementation and in the absence of ex-post project evaluation necessitates the introduction of these functions in the PIM reform agenda. Although the MoFDP has put in place tools for monitoring during implementation, they are being used, at the best, in an ad hoc fashion. There is a need to put in place a monitoring system at two levels. The first level of monitoring should be done by the MDAs that propose and implement the projects/programs. This should cover two aspects—physical and financial progress—and monthly reports should be compiled and maintained in a prescribed format. The second level of monitoring should be done at the level of the MoFDP on a quarterly basis and this should be linked to release of funds based on performance (without this hard monitoring cannot exert any credible pressure on implementing agencies “conditionality,” and hold them accountable to quality implementation). Finally, an annual report may be presented to the cabinet of ministers.
Table : Possible Benefits and Costs of In-house and Outsourced Appraisal Possible benefits Possible costs In-house appraisal Ownership of appraisal and hence an effective tool for strengthening the gate-keeping function. Less costly and timely delivery when capacity built and demand exists. Multiple-level appraisal done at the agency, line ministry, and MoF/MoP levels to facilitate follow-up project review, project adjustment, and implementation. Risk of direct political and bureaucratic interference. Low quality of appraisal due to gradual erosion of skills and expertise over time and lack of infusion of new talent within government agencies. Outsourced appraisal Better quality due to technical competency and possible use of outside expertise from the open market. Timely delivery as more appraisal teams may be engaged using open market resources to meet the demand of increased number of proposals in the pipeline. Direct political interference less likely. Misaligned incentives leading to little or slow knowledge transfer between external hired agency and government departments and line ministries. Costly and still not used if demand for genuine appraisal does not exist. Quality assurance may be difficult (that is, who reviews the appraisal by the hired agency). Source: Authors Establishing an Effective Mechanism for Monitoring and Ex-post Evaluation Weak monitoring during implementation and in the absence of ex-post project evaluation necessitates the introduction of these functions in the PIM reform agenda. Although the MoFDP has put in place tools for monitoring during implementation, they are being used, at the best, in an ad hoc fashion. There is a need to put in place a monitoring system at two levels. The first level of monitoring should be done by the MDAs that propose and implement the projects/programs. This should cover two aspects—physical and financial progress—and monthly reports should be compiled and maintained in a prescribed format. The second level of monitoring should be done at the level of the MoFDP on a quarterly basis and this should be linked to release of funds based on performance (without this hard “conditionality,” monitoring cannot exert any credible pressure on implementing agencies and hold them accountable to quality implementation). Finally, an annual report may be presented to the cabinet of ministers.
656940WP0P12430ox0379860B00PUBLIC0.docx