Evaluación de la gobernanza del programa Red de Oportunidades de Panamá: logros alcanzados y retos pendientes

Abstract

Evaluar una política pública supone adoptar una postura abierta en materia de metodologías y técnicas (cuantitativas y cualitativas) a utilizar. Mientras las técnicas cuantitativas responden a la pregunta cuánto, las de carácter cualitativo intentan averiguar cómo y por qué unas intervenciones funcionan y otras no. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar, a partir de técnicas cualitativas, la gobernanza del programa Red de Oportunidades de Panamá, dado que el marco institucional se ha convertido en un aspecto decisivo para el éxito de las políticas públicas. Se han identificado errores de exclusión e inclusión en el proceso de selección de los beneficiarios del programa y otras deficiencias en la gobernanza, tales como la necesidad de contar con protocolos más eficaces al objeto de garantizar el seguimiento de las corresponsabilidades en educación.

Anti-poverty transfers and school attendance: Panama's Red de Oportunidades

“…Some possible explanations may stem from institutional factors and programme governance. Exclusion and inclusion errors when identifying programme beneficiaries, as well as other deficiencies in governance, have been detected (Him et al , 2019), such as the need to establish more effective protocols in order to guarantee the monitoring of co-responsibilities in education. In addition, some results indicate that the cash transfer provided to households is not a sufficient incentive to make families change their mind about placing their youngest children in the labour market (Hoops and Rosati, 2014).…”

“…1. Him et al . (2019) analysed qualitative data from the Management Information System and from interviews with different stakeholders (senior technical officers from various administrative units of the programme management, directors of schools with children whose families are beneficiaries of the programme, etc.)…”

“…Specifically, the work draws on data corresponding to 2010 and 2013, thereby affording a clearer insight into the programme's impact, given that it has been in force over a longer period and has been able to bring about changes in beneficiaries' behaviour. During this period, as can be seen from the analysis of the qualitative data, the programme's monitoring and evaluation system evidenced certain problems in co-ordinating with schools to verify compliance with co-responsibility in education (Him et al , 2019).…”