Involvement of political decision makers:The Ugandan experienceBy Margaret KakandeMinistry of Finance- Uganda.
This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation
In Slide Show, click on the right mouse buttonSelect Meeting MinderSelect the Action Items tabType in action items as they come upClick OK to dismiss this box
This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered.
IntroductionPolitical decision makers are at the apex of government operations at all levelsPolicy making processes, and budgeting are all political processesPolitical decision makers have constituencies- and thus the clientilistic tendencies Political decision makers usually operate within short-term horizons
MfDR Concepts dependent on political decision makersCountry ownership for control and sustainabilityCountry prioritiesKey questions?How do we define country ownership?Who determines the country priorities?
Ugandas Political structureThe PresidencyThe ParliamentThe Prime Ministers officeSectoral ministriesLCV- DistrictLCIV- MunicipalityLCIII- Sub countyLCII ParishLCI -Village
Political involvement into policy formulationFormulation of PEAP/PRSP was very participatory for technical staffSome district political leaders were consulted National political leaders were consulted after draftingThe president signed the Foreword of the PEAP document
Challenges and Lessons learntLate involvement of political leaders can be disadvantageousDifficult to consult political decision makers at all levelsNeed for effective communication about policy choices and strategies for addressing issues that are nor prioritized nationally
Political involvement in M&EMost national political decision makers were not directly involved in M&EThe parliament has initiated a community assessment mechanism for feedback about resultsAt district level, the Resident District Commissioners are mandated to monitor government programmes
Institutional mandatesReconciling mandates with roles and responsibilities under MfDRFeasibility of using results for learning and decision making- issues of CloutKey concerns-where are the carrots?-whose has the sticks?
Implications for MfDRThe political setting has to be receptive to the notion of MfDR and therefore its concepts and principles -Defining clear results provides better targets for changeEffective integration of the short-term concerns of political decision makers will make MfDR feasible-Using the results chain to depict cause and effect relationships
Implications for MfDR cont.The institutional arrangements should allow for effective communication-Keeping measurement and reporting simpleUsing results for learning and decision making-Using results for accountability with levels of accountability for the actors
Implications for MfDR.Establishment of incentives to generate and use information generated The need to have good indicators along the results chain to convince those interested mainly in the short-term results
Implications for MfDR contThe institutional arrangements should be harmonized to avoid duplication (Example of M&E in local governments in Uganda)Capacity building efforts must target both technical and political decision makers- to have a common language so that the answer to why are we doing this? Is similar for all
Distinguished participantsLike farming with a rudimentary hoe,-----MfDR without the political leaders will be an uphill task .
I thank you for the attention.