Vertically Integrated Policy Monitoring: A Tool for Civil Society Policy Advocacy

Abstract

Effective independent civil society monitoring of public policy processes requires “vertical integration” to monitor different elite actors simultaneously. Vertical integration refers here to the coordination of policy monitoring and public interest advocacy efforts across different “levels” of the policy process, from the local to the national and transnational arenas. Systematic, coordinated monitoring of the performance of all levels of public decision making can reveal more clearly where the main problems are, permitting more precisely targeted civil society advocacy strategies. Because policy makers’ information about actual institutional performance is very limited, rarely field based, and drawn mainly from interested parties (especially in the case of large-scale, decentralized social programs), the resulting information gap creates opportunities for advocacy groups to use independent monitoring to gain credibility and leverage. This article, written originally for a Mexican activist audience, explores the implications of this approach in the context of civil society efforts to monitor and influence World Bank projects.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bank Information Center . (2001a). Home page [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.bicusa.org

Bank Information Center . (2001b). World Bank policy on information disclosure [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.bicusa.org/mdbs/wbg/info.htm

Bretton Woods Project. (2001). Home page [Online]. London: Author. Available: http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org

Center for International Law . (2001). Home page [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ciel.org

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (1999). Assessing environmental effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An analytical framework (Phase II) and issue studies (Environmental and trade series #6). Montreal: Commission on Environmental Cooperation.

Cornelius, W. , Eisenstadt, T. , & Hindley, J. (Eds.). (1999). Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.

Feeney, P. (1998). Accountable aid: Local participation in major projects. Oxford, UK: Oxfam.

Fernández de Villegas, M. , & Adelson, N. (2000). The case of Mexico. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 6(4), 473-492.

Focus: Human Rights in Mexico, 6 [Special issue, online]. (2001, Winter). Available: http://www.sjsocial.org/PRODH/

10.

Fox, J. (1997). Transparency for accountability: Civil-society monitoring of multilateral development bank anti-poverty projects. Development in Practice, 7(2), 167-172.

11.

Fox, J. (2000a, May). Civil society and political accountability: Propositions for discussion. Paper presented at the conference Institutions, Accountability, and Democratic Governance in Latin America, The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.

12.

Fox, J. (2000b). The inter-dependence between citizen participation and institutional accountability: Lessons from Mexico’s rural municipal funds. In K. Piester (Ed.), Thinking out loud: Innovative case studies on participation instruments (pp. 33-48). Washington, DC: World Bank.

13.

Fox, J. (2000c). Los flujos y reflujos de préstamos sociales y ambientales del Banco Mundial en México [The rise and fall of the World Bank’s social and environmental lending to Mexico]. In A. Alvarez Béjar , N. Klahn , F. Manchon , & P. Castillo (Eds.), Las nuevas fronteras del siglo XXI: Dimensiones culturales, políticas y socioeconómicas de las relaciones Mexico-Estados Unidos (pp. 605-640). Mexico City: UNAM/La Jornada Ediciones.

14.

Fox, J. , & Aranda, J. (1996). Decentralization and rural development in Mexico. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.

15.

Fox, J. , & Brown, L. D. (Eds.). (1998). The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs and grassroots movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

16.

Fox, J. , & Gershman, J. (2000). The World Bank and social capital: Lessons from ten rural development projects in the Philippines and Mexico. Policy Sciences, 33(3/4), 399-419.

17.

Frade, L. (Ed.). (2000, June). Equity, participation and consistency? The World Bank at Beijing + 5. Mexico City: Women’s Eyes on the World Bank Campaign.

18.

The Inspection Panel . (2001). Home page [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.inspectionpanel.org

19.

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation . (1999, March). Assessing environmental effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An analytic framework (Phase II) and issue studies (Environment and Trade Series #6) [Online]. Montreal, Canada: Author. Available: http://www.cec.org/pubs_info_resources/publications/enviro_trade_econ/eandt6.cfm?varlan=english

20.

O’Brien, R. , Goetz, A. M. , Scholte, J. A. , & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Rich, B. (1998). Mortgaging the earth. Boston: Beacon.

22.

Udall, L. (1998). The World Bank and public accountability: Has anything changed? In J. Fox & L. D. Brown (Eds.), The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs and grassroots movements (pp. 391-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

World Bank . (1995). Staff appraisal report: “Mexico—Essential social services”. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

World Bank Operations Evaluation Department . (1994, June 30). An overview of monitoring and evaluation in the World Bank (Report No. 13247). Washington, DC: World Bank.

25.

World Bank Operations Evaluation Department . (1995, December 29). Monitoring and evaluation plans in staff appraisal reports issues in fiscal year 1995 (Report No. 15222). Washington, DC: World Bank.