Impact Assessment

Cross-section evaluation of independent evaluations in 2007 in PSD, GTZ/Spaeth, 2008

    Within GTZ's evaluation system, 30 independent evaluations have been conducted in two thematic priority areas each year since 2005. One of the two priority areas in 2007 was private sector development (PSD). Fifteen (17) projects / programmes were evaluated:

    - 5 (7) interim evaluations (Georgia, Morocco, Nepal, South-East Europe (Romania, Croatia, Serbia), South Africa),

    - 6 final evaluations (Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mongolia, Southern African Development Community (SADC)),

    - 4 ex-post evaluations (Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Tanzania, Thailand).

    To promote learning from evaluations at GTZ, the Evaluation Unit commissioned a cross-section evaluation. This gives an overall view of the results of the 17 individual evaluations, identifies recurring strengths and weaknesses or factors of success and failure, and identifies overarching lessons learned and recommendations. One focus is on assessing cross-cutting development-policy issues such as poverty reduction and gender.

    Summary of results
    The Report on the right hand side gives an overall assessment according to DAC criteria, Essential Findings and Conclusions, and Recommendations; the Findings and Conclusions are reproduced below. For more information, please see the Report.

    Technical assessment
    Overall, the evaluation reports reveal hardly any deficits in terms of the PSD approaches and instruments applied. The PSD toolbox is judged to be highly sophisticated and differentiated, and has been continuously further developed.

    In particular, the following conceptual and methodological elements are assessed as relevant to the level of success achieved:

    - capacity development is a central feature of the PSD projects/programmes.

    - the holistic or multi-level approach of the PSD projects/programmes, especially the increasing focus on the macro level, which provides better leverage

    - the value-based approach, i.e. the combination of economic, social and ecological objectives and the contributions to good governance

    - ownership by partners and alignment with national strategies

    - a process-oriented approach

    - the market orientation paired with the establishment of market mechanisms and elements of competition between service providers

    - the promotion of lobbying by business chambers and associations

    - standardised or specially prepared service packages (e.g. Competency based economies through Formation of Enterprise (CEFE), Participatory Appraisal of Competitive Advantage (PACA), business and investment climate surveys).

    Frequent changes in strategic approaches, however, have a negative influence.

    Deficits were identified by the evaluation reports in three main areas:

    (i) Poverty reduction and MDGs
    Altogether, PSD projects/programmes tend to be geared mainly to structural poverty reduction. Most of the projects/programmes do not have sufficient target group differentiation and are insufficiently based on poverty analyses. Their design and implementation are not sufficiently geared to poverty reduction.

    (ii) Gender equality
    Gender equality is still not adequately incorporated as a systematic component of the design, implementation and monitoring of PSD projects/programmes. In the few cases where this is taken into account, the focus is more on specific measures − not sufficiently integrated into the overall approach − to promote the economic participation of women.

    (iii) Results and monitoring
    With a few exceptions, results monitoring in the evaluated PSD projects / programmes is inadequate. Although most projects / programmes have traceable and plausible results chains for direct results, and complex monitoring systems have been developed in some cases, most of them focus on inputs/outputs and less on the use of outputs (intermediate outcomes) and results. The recording of the anticipated development results shows particular deficits. Problem areas are (i) diffuse results constellations and cause-and-effect hypotheses, (ii) a lack of baseline data (differentiated target group analyses) and (iii) a lack of pro-poor and gender-specific monitoring.