Country Ownership in Program Design
-
Upload
susan-contreras -
Category
Documents
-
view
21 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Country Ownership in Program Design
Country Ownership in Program Design
From Principles to Practice
What is MCC?• Established in 2004, a USG Corporation• Mandate: reduce poverty through growth• Programs: large-scale five-year grants• Partners: well governed, investing in their
people, providing economic freedoms• Independence: executive board• Principles: country ownership,
accountability for results
MCC partnersAfrica (14)BeninBurkina FasoCape VerdeGhanaLesotho MadagascarMalawiMaliMoroccoMozambiqueNamibia SenegalTanzaniaZambia
Latin America (4)El Salvador HondurasNicaragua*
Europe/Asia (8)ArmeniaGeorgiaJordan IndonesiaMongoliaMoldovaPhilippinesVanuatu
MCC Programs by Sector
Monitoring and Evaluation 2%
Transportation 34%
Agriculture 21%
Finance and En-terprise Devel-
opment 9%
Water Supply & Sanitation 8%
Health, Educ. & Comm. Services
7%
Governance 5%
Energy; 5%
Program Admin. & Oversight, 9%
The Principles
• Local solutions, not imposed• Better governed are better bets• More willing to pursue and be accountable
for programs of their own making• More willing to undertake difficult reforms• Sustainability
The Early Years• MCC’s pure approach – hands off!
Really?• Nationwide consultations = nationwide
expectations• Partner countries’ time and political capital • Is the oatmeal too hot or too cold?• Program redesign – abandonment of
principle?• Response: early engagement on a vision
Bounding the Universe
• Constraints analysis - finding a shared vision
• Defining the world of the possible• Political economy of proposals• Defense against “pet” projects, but not
enough to indentify good projects• Response: meaningful consultations
So who is the “Country”?• It matters who you ask• Elite capture• Stakeholders or the usual suspects?• Meaningful consultations: from
information to partnership• Country, culture and political contexts• Role of Constraints Analysis in framing
Results Focused Project Design
• The real stakeholders• Do they agree on the problem?• What does the ideal state look like?• What’s holding us back?• Oops, what if the problem isn’t money
A more realistic ownership?
• Attributes not project guidance– Sound program rationale from activities to
outcomes that can be measured– Capacity – existing and opportunities– Policy environment and sustainability– Implementation risks of all types– Crowd in other actors– The list goes on…
• Communication and misunderstandings
12
CAN BE COMPLETEDIN FIVE YEARS
HIGH POTENTIAL
RETURNS (ERR)
WITHIN CAPACITY OF SPONSOR
PRO POOR
MANAGABLEENVIRONMENT
AND SOCIAL RISKS
SUPPORTIVEPOLICY
ENVIRONMENT
IS THERE A PROJECT ?
Getting to yes• Concept papers – early heart to heart• Peer review• Grants for project development• Appraisal of findings• Negotiating compact scope
Lessons along the continuum
• Strong appreciation for the principle• Some frustration with the practice• Wide variety of experiences• Tensions between ownership and
stewardship• Owning policies more important than
programs• Ownership of implementation
15
MCC Program Development Cycle
Implementation Preparation
Development and Appraisal
Concept Assessment
Concept Papers
Project Identification – Stakeholder Analysis
Initial Consultations
Constraints Analysis
THANK YOU