an Eldis Resource
Good practice in the development of PRSP indicators and monitoring systems
Integrating PRSP indicators into policy formation processes
Authors:
D. Booth; H. Lucas
Publisher:
Overseas Development Institute, London, 2002
This paper, produced by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), contains the key findings of a desk study commissioned by the Poverty Monitoring Task Team of the Strategic Partnership with Africa (SPA). The paper reviews Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) indicators and monitoring systems, arguing that monitoring mechanisms need to be founded on a realistic consideration of the relevant policy processes and the possible uses of information required to enforce new kinds of accountability and learning about poverty reduction. The results-orientation of the PRSP approach ought to consider final poverty outcomes/ impacts, intermediate outputs/ implementation processes and the delivery of the key inputs of poverty reduction strategies.
Part I of this paper discusses the roles of monitoring and information in a PRSP context and reviews how to chose indicators. Part II of this paper goes on to examine what to monitor and why, how to monitor in a way that provides a supply of valid and reliable information, and examines the question of monitoring for whom and for what.
Following an analysis of the initial PRSP documentation for Sub Saharan Africa , it was found that:
- PRSPs are leading to a major upsurge in final poverty-outcome measurement.
- There is much less evidence of renewed interest in measuring the intermediate processes and achievements necessary to produce the desired final outcomes.
- Little attention has been given to the poor quality of the administrative reporting systems on which much of the relevant data depend.
- Input monitoring is being relatively neglected as a component of PRSP monitoring.
- Little is being said about how stakeholders will be incorporated into PRSP monitoring arrangements.
- The approach to selection of indicators is at present not very purposeful.
The study also sought out good ideas to help address the identified gaps and weaknesses, which covered what to monitor and why, how to monitor; and monitoring for whom and for what. Some of the key findings were:
- A multidimensional approach to final poverty outcomes is increasingly accepted.
- The selection of intermediate variables to monitor needs to involve strategic thinking, as opposed to minor additions to existing poverty-monitoring systems.
- Tracking financial and non-financial inputs can lead to policy improvements that are critical for poverty reduction.
- For poverty targeting purposes, survey data needs to be combined with census and/ or PPA results. ยท Improvements in routine information systems call for realism and a very imaginative approach.
- Service delivery surveys, problem-oriented commissioned studies and participatory impact monitoring (PIM) have proven to be useful complements to administrative data.
- Financial tracking surveys could be usefully combined with participatory approaches to public expenditure management.
[Adapted from author]
