Research on the current state of PRS monitoring systems

Abstract

This report reviews recent literature on monitoring Poverty Reduction Strategies. It discusses four
\nchallenging areas: institutional arrangements; the role of non-government organisations; implementation
\nand intermediate output monitoring; and using results. The main findings are:
\n• Severe capacity constraints are not sufficiently acknowledged. International agencies should be less
\nambitious about what can be achieved and in what time frame.
\n• The “technical secretariats”, responsible for implementing monitoring, are of central importance.
\nTheir need for analytical skills is widely acknowledged, but expertise in data management,
\ncommunication and marketing are also necessary.
\n• Building cooperation between ministries and agencies responsible for producing data is proving
\ndifficult. Success often depends on the status, capabilities and personalities of key people, not on
\nformal mandates and frameworks.
\n• Unless countries have strong local monitoring systems, it is hard to see that building local PRS
\nmonitoring capacity should be an immediate priority, given the magnitude of this task.
\n• There is often confusion about the role of civil society in government monitoring systems. It is
\nimportant that all stakeholders are aware of the involvement offered and that sufficient thought is
\ngiven to the capacity, information access and influence required for civil society to perform their role.
\n• The “chains of causality” between policies and outcomes remain problematic. This leads to problems
\nin identifying appropriate intermediate indicators. Given scarce resources, a focus on monitoring
\nbudget allocations – linked to a small set of basic provision indicators – may be a reasonable and
\nrealistic starting point.
\n• Administrative data provide essential information, but often not of sufficient quality for PRS
\nmonitoring. It is worth exploring possibilities for combining them with other sources to generate
\n“best estimates”.
\n• Demand for PRS monitoring information, other than to meet donor requirements, is often very
\nweak. Monitoring systems must include marketing and communication activities to build this
\ndemand.
\nKeywords: PRSPs, monitoring, evaluation, participatory processes, poverty assessments, institutional
\nreform, decentralisation, poverty indicators.
\nThe findings of the fieldwork support the hypothesis that communities exposed to the risk of civil war consciously take rational courses of action over their assets to confront the adverse effects of the war. One apparent policy implication that arises from this is that communities exposed to civil war consciously manage their assets, it is possible to pursue poverty programmes during conflict in order to support the innovative household assets management strategies as well as addressing the underlying sources of grievance and horizontal inequality. While such programmes may not be relevant to communities exposed to endogenous counterinsurgency warfare, they are appropriate to support assets management strategies adopted by households exposed to exogenous counterinsurgency warfare.