|
Monitoring and Evaluation for Accountability: The Case of Nigeria's Virtual Poverty Fund
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Lawal Aboki,
Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Millenium Development Goals,
lyaboki@yahoo.co.uk
|
| Abstract:
The granting of debt relief to Nigeria in September 2005 was surrounded by historically-founded skepticism that the savings would be not be utilized properly for the benefit of ordinary Nigerians. This paper describes the development and implementation of a comprehensive tracking system entitled 'Overview of Public Expenditure in NEEDS' (OPEN) that aimed to both effectively track debt relief expenditures, and act as a platform for wider public expenditure reform. A key component of OPEN is a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanism that monitors the quality of debt-relief funded expenditures. The process has brought together government officials, private sector experts and civil society organizations. The paper describes the numerous challenges faced by the Nigerian government in the development of OPEN. The process of implementation has lessons for the entire international community, but most significantly many lessons that are uniquely African.
|
|
Normative Supports, Psychological Resistances, and Procedural Support: Lessons Learned of Performance Management of the Korean Government
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Wha-Joon Rho,
Seoul National University,
wjrho@snu.ac.kr
|
| Kilkon Ko,
National University of Singapore,
kilkon@gmail.com
|
| YeonBaek Jeong,
Seoul National University,
|
| Abstract:
Despite a strong initiative of performance management by the Korean government over last years, critics argue that it did not change behaviors of public officials. The criticism implicitly assumes that organizational capacity is the result of performance management. However, the reverse causation would be valid: without enough organizational capacity, no desirable outcomes of performance management are expected.
This paper analyzes how members of organizations support performance management normatively, and how they resist to it in actual implementation procedures, and how they comply with the formal requirement. For the analysis, we surveyed 600 public servants in different jurisdictions, and collected actual performance evaluation data of 27 central government department and agencies of the Korean government. The former includes a normative and psychological attitudes of organizational members. The latter covers the formal responses of organizations required by performance management. Based on those data, we will explain why the delusive high normative support disguises the low compliance of members in actual implementation
|
| |