Using systems thinking to conceptually link the monitoring and evaluation function within development interventions and public policy

Abstract

The monitoring and evaluation function provides for accountability and to some extent transparency and, therefore, governance. However, this function can only be effective if it is conceptually linked within development interventions and public policy. There is an explicit discussion of the middle-third tier (how to monitor and evaluate) as well as the bottom-third tier (data collection and storage, data processing and analysis, reporting results and findings, integrating results and findings into planning and implementation as well as overall decision making). Unfortunately, the top-third tier that links monitoring and evaluation within development interventions (the what) and public policy (the how) is implicit, if present. The discussions often point out that monitoring and evaluation is a management and decision-making tool but they omit or fail to link it to development interventions and public policy, leadership and governance. In this paper, we interrogate literature from a systems thinking perspective to derive a model that conceptually links the monitoring and evaluation function within development interventions and public policy. In doing so, we point out and link the five components (cultural, political, economic, social and environmental) and two processes (imminent and immanent) of development. Similarly, we point out and link the five components (leadership, governance, political-economy, institutional arrangements and organisation arrangements) and three processes (research, decision-making and the public policy cycle) of public policy. It is in the latter that we point out, situate and link the monitoring and evaluation function. We envisage that the proposed model may be useful in reconfiguring institutional and organisational arrangements to foster effective monitoring and evaluation of development interventions.

An assessment of alignment between development interventions and monitoring and evaluation in Limpopo Province, South Africa

“…All that government does is to provide improved living condition to its citizenry. Wotela (2017a) supports the accountability role of M&E, but adds that this process, to some extent, provides transparency and good governance. However, the process of M&E should be linked to the development intervention and public policy (Wotela 2017a).…”

“…Wotela (2017a) supports the accountability role of M&E, but adds that this process, to some extent, provides transparency and good governance. However, the process of M&E should be linked to the development intervention and public policy (Wotela 2017a). On the contrary, Adejuwon (2014) strongly emphasised that there is a need to strengthen debates about the role, scope and performance of organisations and public sector.…”

“…Citing Baradei, Abdelhamid and Wally (2014), Wotela (2017a) indicates that the reason for absent or ineffective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of development plans in some African countries was lack of political will. This has impacted the shape and focus of the departmental Annual Performance Plans (APPs) as the technocrats strive by all ways to make political leaders happy in return for job benefits.…”

Challenges of failing to link monitoring and evaluation findings with development interventions in Limpopo province, South Africa

“…Citizen participation in matters of their development is emphasised more on local sphere of government in South Africa as per the White Paper on Local Government of 1998. 2,4 On the other hand, interventions are plans made or established to contribute in change from one advancement stage to the other. In Limpopo, government has developed the Limpopo Development Plan 2015/2019 as part of bringing intervention by developing strategies to improve living conditions of citizens of Limpopo.…”

“…Limpopo Province shares international borders with districts and provinces of three countries of Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. As argued by Masiapato & Wotela, 2,4 rural areas in South Africa were exposed of poor service delivery processes by apartheid government, Limpopo rural areas were not immune from the discrimination development of the then apartheid regime of South Africa (SA) where only areas occupied by white people were provided more resources. This left the black dominated areas under-developed.…”