Improving Project,Program and Policy Performance in Developing Countries through Managing for Development Results

Abstract

This article seeks to answer five questions: (1) What is ‘Managing for Development Results (MfDR)’? (2) What are the known conditions for the successful adoption of MfDR?, (3) Do these conditions apply to developing countries?, (4) Does MfDR produce better results in developing countries?, and (5) What are some of the emerging challenges in adopting MfDR? In noting that that MfDR is results-based management expressed in the language of development, the reasons for the adoption of the new term and the possible consequences of this are explored. While the perils of transferring management practices from one cultural context to another are noted, the Asian Development Bank's experience supports the view that the known conditions for successful adoption of MfDR generally apply to developing countries. Many developing countries also face special challenges not faced by rich countries and they need to deal with the particular cultural context that may support or impede successful adoption. Surprisingly little research has been conducted to test the relationship between MfDR and improved development results. However, the evidence presented in this article supports the view that applying the principles of MfDR can bring about significant improvements in project, program and policy performance. Paradoxically though, those countries that need the benefits the most are the least likely to be able to apply whole-of-government MfDR. Notwithstanding this, adoption where the conditions are favorable offers hope for better results from projects, programs and policies in the future.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ADB 2001, Selected technical assistance for strengthening evaluation capacity in developing member countries, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

ADB 2004, 2004 Action Plan for Managing for Development Results, Asian Development Bank, Manila, <http://www.adb.org/MfDR/actionplan/default.asp>.

ADB 2005, The 2005 Annual Evaluation Review, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

ADB, 2006a, Mainstreaming MfDR in support of poverty reduction in South Asia, Asian Development Bank, Manila, <http://www.adb.org/projects/project.asp?id=39601>.

ADB 2006b, The 2006 Annual Evaluation Review, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

ADB 2007a, Annual report on 2006 portfolio performance, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

ADB 2007b, Guidelines for preparing a design and monitoring framework, Asian Development Bank, Manila, <http://www.adb.org/Documents/Guidelines/guidelines-preparing-dmf/default.asp>.

ADB, 2007c, Managing for development results in the Asian Development Bank: A Preliminary Assessment, Asian Development Bank Manila.

ADB 2007d, Policy-based lending: emerging practices in supporting reforms in developing member countries, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

10.

ADB 2007e, Special evaluation study on the Asian Development Fund viii and ix operations, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

11.

ADB 2008, Performance evaluation report, Mongolia: Governance Reform Program, Manila.

12.

African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter-American Development Bank, and World Bank 2004, Joint Marrakech Memorandum and Annex 1: promoting a harmonized approach to managing for development results and Annex 2: action plan on managing for development results, <http://www.mfdr.org/2ndRoundtable.html>.

13.

Caiden

, & Wildavsky

1990, Planning and budgeting in poor countries, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

14.

Hofstede

1980, Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values, Sage, Beverley Hills, California.

15.

Hofstede

1991, Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, McGraw Hill, London.

16.

Mackay

2006, Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation systems to improve public sector management, World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Washington DC.

17.

Mackay

2007, How to build M&E systems to support better government, World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Washington DC.

18.

Ronen

, & Shenkar

1985, ‘Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 435–454.

19.

Schick

1998, ‘Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand reforms’, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 123–131.

20.

Schneider

S.C.

, & Barsoux

J.L.

1997, Managing across cultures, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, England.