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. 

Donors and governments are increasingly seeking to implement development projects through self-help groups (SHGs) in the belief that such institutional arrangements will enhance development outcomes, encourage sustainability, and foster capacity in local civil society – all at lower cost to coffers. But little is known about the effectiveness of such institutional arrangements or the potential harm that might be caused by using SHGs as ‘vehicles’ for the delivery of development aid.  This report synthesizes available evidence on the effectiveness of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in promoting health, finance, agriculture, and empowerment objectives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings are intended to inform strategic decisions about how to best use scarce resources to leverage existing SHG interventions in various geographies and to better understand how local institutions such as SHGs can serve as platforms to enhance investments. 

Suggested Citation:

Anderson, C. L., Gugerty, M. K., Biscaye, P., True, Z., Clark, C., & Harris, K. P. (2014). Self-Help Groups in Development: A Review of Evidence from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. EPAR Technical Report #283. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/epar_283_shg_evidence_review_brief_10.23.20.pdf

Water supply and sanitation is the responsibility of sub-national state governments under the Indian Constitution. At present, the national government sets water supply and sanitation policy while states plan, design, and execute water supply schemes accordingly. Furthermore, while state governments are in charge of operation and maintenance, they may pass the responsibility to village or district levels. Given the highly decentralized provision of water and sanitation services, there is no autonomous regulatory agency for the water supply and sanitation sector in India at the state or national level. This report reviews literature on India’s urban sanitation policy. The methodology includes Google, Lexis-Nexis, and University of Washington Library searches, searches of two major Indian newspapers, and searches of websites and blogs sponsored by non-governmental organizations. Sources also include the India Sanitation Portal, a forum on sanitation in India used by governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and WASH Sanitation Updates, a sanitation news feed with considerable material on India. We find that urban sanitation policy, as embodied in the National Urban Sanitation Plan of 2008, remains focused on decentralized approaches. Our research reveals no evidence of a change in official policy, nor evidence suggesting that government sanitation programs conflict with official policy.

This report provides an overview of poultry market trends in Benin as compared to the wider West African region. In Benin, live chickens, hens, poultry meat, and eggs for consumption are subject to the 20 percent Common External Tariff (CET), which facilitates an influx of cheap poultry imports from the European Union (EU). Live turkeys and other poultry, reproducers, and hatching eggs are subject to a 5 percent tariff. In the late 1990s, Benin experienced an influx of cheap poultry products primarily from the EU. By 2002, annual poultry imports reached approximately 24,000 tons, more than the poultry imports of any other country in West Africa.  In 2004 and 2005, Benin banned imports of poultry and poultry by-products from countries affected by avian influenza. Current information about the poultry industry in Benin is limited. The primary sources for this analysis are a FAO poultry sector review from 2006, a poultry sector project report from the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), and a 2006 assessment by the Benin Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fishing. We find that the poultry sector plays an important economic, social and cultural role in Benin. Poultry and egg production is a major contributor to the agricultural sector and is an important source of nutrition and income for Beninese households. The poultry sector in Benin has the potential to improve the nutritional wellbeing and income security of a large percentage of the population. Traditional smallholders produce the majority of poultry products domestically; however, current production is limited due to low productivity, poor biosecurity, and lack of inputs. We find that a reduction of foreign imports and greater institutional support for the industry may help domestic producers reach their potential.