Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.
Monitoring of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) is primarily driven by the need to meet the requirements of donors. However, most countries with Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) lack the resources and skills necessary to undertake monitoring activities as well as the inclination to use data to shape policymaking. How can donors help countries to develop their own systems?
A discussion paper from the Institute of Development Studies, UK shows that although PRSP preparation has generated an interest in monitoring systems and data within developing countries, this interest does not extend to the detailed activities required to implement these systems effectively. Some of the first countries to draw up PRSPs emphasised outcomes and impacts and the need for evidence that policies result in actual improvements. But it is now clear that selecting relevant poverty indicators that can monitor the links between policies and outcomes is the key issue.
The authors find that:
Apart from a few countries, for example Uganda and Tanzania, countries with a PRS are not using performance monitoring to drive policy change or for budget allocation decisions. PRS monitoring agencies require political expertise and communications skills to persuade government officials and civil society of the value of the information being produced. Armenia, Honduras, Mozambique, Rwanda and Uganda are among the countries which have shown that poverty monitoring and social impact analysis can generate reliable data and have encouraged an interest in the use of PRS data.
The researchers suggest that donors can help countries by:
Many PRS countries are committed to decentralisation policies that would need local monitoring systems. But local skills are less developed than at the national level. However, the researchers caution that developing local skills on monitoring should not necessarily be seen as a priority, given the magnitude of the task and costs involved.
Source(s):
‘Research on the current state of PRS monitoring systems’ by Henry Lucas,
David Evans and Katherine Pasteur, IDS Discussion Paper 382, Institute of
Development Studies, December 2004 Full document.
Funded by: DFID Poverty Analysis and Monitoring (PAM)
id21 Research Highlight: 27 September 2005
Further Information:
Henry Lucas and Katherine Pasteur
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE UK
Tel:
+44 (0) 1273 606261
Fax:
+44 (0) 1273 621202/69164
Contact the contributor: h.lucas@ids.ac.uk; K.Pasteur@ids.ac.uk
Institute of Development Studies, UK
David Evans
Sussex European Institute
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE UK
Tel:
+44 (0) 1273 606755 ext.6594
Fax:
+44 (0) 01273 878571
Contact the contributor: H.D.Evans@sussex.ac.uk
Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex
Other related links:
'Any change in policy-making? Assessing Benin’s Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper'
'Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers in Africa: are they really making a
difference to policies?'
'Measuring the results: how to monitor progress towards the Millennium
Development Goals'
'Monitoring PRSPs: business as usual?'
Eldis resources on PRSPs
World Health Organisation's project on monitoring PRSPs