Evidence-based decision making in the pursuit of human development
Perrformance and achievement of outcomes and long-term impacts are the focal points of Managing for Development Results (MfDR).
Partner countries, multilateral development banks, bilateral donors, civil society and other stakeholders co-operate and learn about results-based public sector management and policies. Donors and partners commit to knowledge sharing and collectively achieving results, they cooperate to learn about practical tools for planning, risk management and monitoring and evaluation.
The Global Partnership on Managing for Development Results supports the work of partner countries and donor agencies to implement results-based approaches. It focusses on country capacity to build up results systems, guidelines for agency effectiveness and mutual accountability frameworks. Regional MfDR Communities of Practice serve as platforms for knowledge exchange and capacity development.
Resources for managing for development results
Strong and effective institutions are fundamental to achieving sustainable development outcomes in Africa. In response to this, members of the African Community of Practice (AfCoP) on Managing for Development Results (MfDR) are striving to make their organisations more performance-oriented. These case studies embody this commitment. Over the past three years, the AfCoP has mobilised over 1 000 results practitioners who have shared ideas, challenges and solutions on managing for development results, and conveyed their will for change in African governments and among development stakeholders. Thanks to the community’s knowledge exchange activities, concepts have been widely disseminated and brought into the mainstream. This publication now takes practitioners one step further in demonstrating ways to develop effective strategies at the country level.
Sourcebook: Emerging good practices in managing for development results
Provides examples of how different groups in different circumstances have applied the principles of managing for results and addressed the challenges that arose. A concrete structure and set of tools have been developed to enhance government performance and to boost accountability at all levels. The MfDR approach embodies generally accepted tenets of good governance – setting clear objectives, evidence-based decision making, transparency, and continuous adaptation and improvement.
Development Results (MfDR) has emerged as a centrepiece of global efforts to improve the effectiveness of public resources.
While discussion of MfDR has been widespread, it has occurred mostly at the technical level. Purpose of this Policy Brief is to define MfDR, emphasise its most important implications, and direct decision-makers to places where they can find additional information and examples of MfDR.
Managing for Development Results (MfDR) means focusing on concrete impacts at all phases of the national development process. A concrete structure and set of tools have been developed to enhance government performance and to boost accountability at all levels. The MfDR approach embodies generally accepted tenets of good governance – setting clear objectives, evidence-based decision making, transparency, and continuous adaptation and improvement.
For more information, please consult the Managing for Development Results website
Mutal accountability at the country level
Part of a broader effort of managing for development results, a report entitled Mutual Accountability at the Country Level: Emerging Good Practices (pdf, 596 kB) examines how the process of mutual accountability works at country and international levels. Country case studies of Mozambique (pdf, 526 kB), Rwanda (pdf, 406 kB) and Vietnam (pdf, 430 kB) provide specific focused analysis.
Mutual accountability at the international level
Part of a broader effort of managing for development results, this report (pdf, 325 kB) aims to answer practical questions: Do existing mechanisms that make up the Declaration's accountability framework at the international and regional level function effectively as a system that is fit for purpose? If not, are there operationally-feasible and politically-acceptable interventions that stakeholders can make to strengthen the system?