Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

Aid results information is often not comparable, since monitoring and evaluation frameworks, information gathering processes, and definitions of “results” differ across donors and governments. This report reviews approaches to results monitoring and evaluation used by governments in developing countries, and highlights trends and gaps in national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. We collect evidence on 42 separate government M&E systems in 23 developing countries, including 17 general national M&E systems and 25 sector-specific national M&E systems, with 14 focused on HIV/AIDS, 8 on health, and 3 on agriculture. The evidence review includes external case studies and evaluations of M&E systems, government M&E assessments, M&E plans, strategic plans with an M&E component, and multi-country reviews of M&E, accountability, and aid effectiveness. We evaluate harmonization of government and development partner M&E systems, coordination and institutionalization of government M&E, challenges in data collection and monitoring, and analysis and use of results information. We also report on key characteristics of M&E systems in different sectors. 

Aid donors are interested in the arguments for allocating aid via bilateral versus multilateral channels, and specifically in understanding which channel is more “effective” at supporting positive development and social outcomes. We contribute to the literature on this subject by summarizing recent OECD data on aid flows and reviewing the theoretical arguments from the aid literature on the different characteristics supporting effectiveness of bilateral versus multilateral aid. We then review the empirical literature, analyzing 40 papers that study the effectiveness of different aid channels on various outcomes. Many studies do not directly compare the effectiveness of aid channels, and the studies vary in how aid channels are defined, measured, and evaluated. Further, these studies do not directly test the hypothesized advantages of one channel of aid versus another; rather they test bilateral versus multilateral aid flows associations with development outcomes, assuming some causal mechanism is at work to explain differences in impact. We evaluate studies reporting the impacts of aid on GDP growth, governance, government investment spending, health, the HDI, poverty, and private investment, and find no consistent evidence that either bilateral or multilateral aid is more effective. The lack of conclusive evidence supporting either aid channel is likely related to differences in the methodologies of the studies included in this review, but may also be due to differences in how the theoretical arguments for the effectiveness of either channel apply in different circumstances.

This brief provides an overview of the national and zonal characteristics of agricultural production in Tanzania using the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). More detailed information and analysis is available in the separate EPAR Tanzania LSMS-ISA Reference Report, Sections A-G.

As part of the Crops & Climate Change series, this brief is presented in three parts: 1) An evaluation of the importance of Sorghum and Millet in SSA, based on production, net exports, and caloric need, 2) A novel analysis of historical and projected climate conditions in Sorghum and Millet growing regions, followed by a summary of the agronomic and physiological vulnerability of Sorghum and Millet crops, 3) A summary of current resources dedicated to sorghum and millet, based on research and development investments and National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Our analysis indicates that sorghum and millets may become increasingly important in those areas of SSA predicted to become hotter and subject to more variable precipitation as a result of climate change. Although sorghum and millet are currently grown on marginal agricultural lands and consumed for subsistence by poorer population segments, climate change could render these drought- and heat-tolerant crops the most viable future cereal production option in some areas where other cereals are currently grown. Fewer international development resources are currently devoted to sorghum and millet than are devoted to other cereal grains, and current resource allocation may not reflect the increased reliance on these grains necessitated by projected climactic changes.