Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research ISSN: 2409-2622 Vol. 2, No. 2, 91-99, 2015 http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJEER * Corresponding Author 91 Monitoring and Evaluation in the Public Sector: A Case Study of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in South Africa N.Z Hlatshwayo 1 --- K K Govender 2* 1 Regenesys Business School, Johannesburg, South Africa 2 Regensys Business School and University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Abstract This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 92 2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................................................... 92 3. Research Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 95 4. Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................................... 95 5. Sample and Sampling................................................................................................................................................................ 95 6. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95 7. Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 8. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 96 9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 97 10. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................... 98 11. Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................................................................................... 98 References ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Since the publication of the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework (GWM&EPF) by the Presidency in South Africa (SA), several policy documents giving direction, clarifying context, purpose, vision, and strategies of M&E were developed. In many instances broad guidelines stipulate how M&E should be implemented at the institutional level, and linked with managerial systems such as planning, budgeting, project management and reporting. This research was undertaken to examine how the „institutionalisation‟ of M&E supports meaningful project implementation within the public sector in South Africa (SA), with specific reference to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRD&LR). This paper provides a theoretical and analytical framework on how M&E should be “institutionalised”, by emphasising that the IM&E is essential in the public sector, to both improve service delivery and ensure good governance. It is also argued that the M&E has the potential to support meaningful implementation, promote organisational development, enhance organisational learning and support service delivery. Keywords: Corporate governance, Monitoring and evaluation, Public sector, Service delivery. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 92 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction and Background to the Study Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has the capacity to transform government departments and the public sector into a functional system that is participatory and representative (UNDP, 2013). The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the World Bank has thus undertaken numerous initiatives to support developing countries to strengthen their Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) capacities and skills, as integral to achieving good governance, public sector transformation and service delivery (UNDP, 2013). In 2005, the Paris Declaration on Aid and Effectiveness (PDAE) highlighted the capacity to „plan, manage, implement and account for the results of policies and programs through M&E systems (Mosse and Lewis, 2005). In South Africa (SA), the government‟s National Development Plan (NDP) emphasizes the role of M&E in meeting its strategic and developmental objectives, poverty reduction, budget decision-making and project implementation processes (National Development Plan, 2012). In essence, M&E strengthens the management of government activities within ministries and in local governments, and supports accountability relationships within civil society. With poor service delivery and rampant corruption in the (SA) public sector, M&E supports transparency and builds a performance culture to support better management and policymaking, including the budgeting process (Mosse and Lewis, 2005). According to Kambuwa and Wallis (2002) in SA there is a growing gap between good policies of government departments and project implementation results. As such, it is important to follow participatory implementation and institutionalise processes for greater accountability, since it provides a vital evaluative link between policy development and project implementation (Kambuwa and Wallis, 2002). The (SA) Government Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (The Presidency, 2007) seeks to transform the public sector by promoting capacity building, and decision making to support public service delivery. In this framework, the institutionalisation of M&E contributes considerably to policy making, innovation, growth and learning in the public sector. Although SA is known for its progressive developmental policies and other legislative measures aimed at widespread social transformation, poor implementation and resultant slow service delivery raises questions on the „institutionalisation‟ of meaningful M&E within the policy management cycle. Underpinned by the (SA) Government-Wide Monitoring & Evaluative Framework (GWM&EF), this research explores various concepts and frameworks to report on the state of the IM&E in the public sector. More specifically, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Unit (DRD&LR) was used as a case study, and in this context, attention was given to the unintended consequences of policies and the important function of the IM&E on project implementation. More specifically, the aim of this research (on which this paper is written) was to explore M&E theories in the context of the IM&E, in order to support meaningful project implementation and service delivery. In addition, this research looked at internal and external processes that hinder or enhance M&E, especially its institutionalisation, as well as issues of „institutional capacity‟. In summary, the research attempted to ascertain how the DRD&LR monitors and evaluates the implementation of the public policy, how is M&E institutionalised, and whether the institutional arrangements compatible with institutional capacity. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Role and Importance M&E in the Public Sector There are as many theories on M&E, as there are many methodologies and approaches to M&E in the public domain (Mackay, 1989). Often the concepts M&E are confused or conflated together as “a function of project management which provides information on the various stages of the project in order to make necessary adjustments,” (Dobrea and Ciocoiu, 2010). As such, M&E interventions are considered important tools that provide information on project management, which assist managers in decision making. The World Bank (2006) posits that “the process of M&E can be approached and understood from a multi-stage perspective, namely, the budget and allocation of scarce public resources, accountability and transparency, performance of public programs, enhancement of equality of opportunity, and understanding what pubic investments and interventions work well.” According to in many instances, M&E is “commonly associated with Evidence Based Policy-Making (EBPM) or Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB) or Results-Based Management (RBM).” The aforementioned researchers also argue that by introducing M&E at the initial stages of a project, the project team will benefit from continuous feedback allowing for timely-corrective decision making, before evaluation happens. As such, M&E provides an „evidence base‟ for public budget resource allocation decisions and identifies mistakes and replicates success. Therefore, monitoring provides the background for reducing schedule and budget cost overruns, while ensuring that the required quality standards are achieved in project implementation. Evaluation can be understood as “an instrument for helping planners and project developers to assess to what extent the projects have achieved the desired objectives set forth in the project documents,” (Solomon and Young, 2007). M&E has experienced exponential growth, in recent years, thanks to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank (WB). According to Bamberger (2006) the traditional functions of M&E stress the managerial and accountability features of the process. However, emerging approaches put the governance and policy dialogue dimensions forward, where M&E functions as “an accountability mechanism, fostering greater transparency, enhances governance and democracy, and the voice of civil society,” (Bamberger, 2006). Although governments the world over continue to promote the importance of M&E in project implementation, in most developing countries, the need for M&E is initiated by outside institutions like multinational agencies, development banks and donors, to promote improved measurement, monitoring and management for result OECD (1996). Mackay (2000) agues that “governments migrate to M&E since it provides feedback on the performance of departments, ministerial agencies and their staff.” Monitoring and evaluation also helps “improve budgeting, decision making, inter-governmental fiscal control, enhance the quality of government policy and end corruption,” Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 93 (Mackay, 2006). Another key driver of M&E is that it is considered “essential for public sector reforms aimed at changing the role of government, as well as for good management and service delivery,” Dahler-Larsen et al. (2006). In most developing countries, there is a move toward a Results-Based M&E system, as it “provides crucial information about public sector performance, a view over time on the status of a programme, promotes credibility and public confidence,” (Mackay, 2006). Results-Based M&E systems help to formulate and justify budgets, identify good practices, focus on achieving outcomes, establish goals and objectives, permit managers to identify and take action to correct weaknesses, and supports the development agenda that is shifting towards greater accountability for aid (Mackay, 2006). In the literature, there is no consensus on how M&E interventions contribute to outcomes or whether outcomes can be attributed to such interventions (Deprez, 2008). Earl et al. (2001) argue that “M&E does not assume a linear relationship between intervention and outcome, it focuses on intervention and behaviour change.” Commonly, the successful implementation of projects is attributable to the use of M&E, even though the project manager is unaware or, is not consciously applying a monitoring and evaluation framework. As such, the attention is on the assessment of the project and achievement of outcomes, instead of attributing results to interventions. In the public sector, theories of change are widely used to take a long-term view with emphasis on implementation, knowledge management and impact assessment (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The linkage between change management and M&E ensures that “processes are adapted to the situation, and it also signals a shift towards more participatory methods,” (Kusek and Rist, 2004). Gildemyn (2013) argues that “it is not enough to only analyse policy and how it is implemented, but it is equally important to understand to what extent it has met its objectives, as well as to know what worked, as this brings about accountability and feedback, as well as knowledge and insight to what has been accomplished.” In the last few decades, there has been a general movement, in developing countries, towards a: “A New Public Management Approach” underpinned by the adoption of vigorous M&E systems (UNDP, 2000). The movement towards public sector reforms was propelled by a growing trend towards democracy, accountability and transparency which has placed substantial emphasis on the M&E of development and tracking of public resources (McNeil and Malena, 2010). In the public sector reform process, there is no single, best approach to a national or sectoral M&E system, and each approach is based on what the system is intended to achieve, which is either to assist in the budgeting process or to support service delivery (Mackay, 1999). Various countries have adopted different approaches to public sector reforms according to their specific requirements, aligned with M&E systems. In Brazil, M&E assumes a comprehensive “whole-of-government approach” from the setting of public program objectives to the creation of a system of performance indicators (Mackay, 2006). While in Colombia, public sector reforms are linked to the processes of public service monitoring impact evaluation of objectives (Mackay, 2006). In Africa however, value for money in expenditures, quality of budget M&E in Uganda are fragmented, due to conflicting and multiple government and donor reporting formats (Plaatjie and Porter, 2006). In South Africa, public sector reforms and the „institutionalisation‟ of M&E are linked to both the National Development Plan and other global commitments (Engela and Ajam, 2010). Although the above in not a comprehensive discussion of M&E, as this is not the purpose of this paper, an attempt was made to explain the concepts (M&E) broadly, and the context of its application in the public sector in general, and South Africa in particular. The discussion will now migrate to the „insitutionalizing‟ of M&E in the public sector. 2.2. Institutionalization of M&E in the Public Sector Governments, especially in developing countries, are required to adhere to various M&E methods and systems stipulated by donors, multilateral agreements and other UNDP prescriptions (UNDP, 2000). In recent years, South American countries‟ like Brazil, Chile and Colombia have also adopted methods and designed systems that are mutually different but relevant to their individual country specifics. According to Mackay (2007) Chile‟s innovative approach “is nourished by the countries commitment to improved public service management and delivery, the role of the Finance Ministry adds impetus to its design and implementation.” In these instances, the different M&E methods are determined by, among others, situational context, purpose and resources, as well as the intended impact and output. Invariably, the institutionalisation of M&E is linked to “broad public sector reforms geared towards results-based management, performance based budgeting and evidence-based policy making,” (Plaatjie and Porter, 2006). Often, institutionalisation is used in the “pursuit of good governance and meaningful project implementation, as well as contributes to building institutional capacity, increasing skills, development of processes, structures and systems,” (May et al., 2006). In essence, institutionalization of M&E facilitates the creation of a support system which produces monitoring information and evaluation of findings which are judged valuable by key stakeholders. According to Mackay (2006) “institutionalisation of M&E in the public sector requires key drivers and substantive demand from key government departments.” Sivagnanasothy (2007) argues that when M&E is institutionalized, “it becomes an integral part of the development program, it leads to improved planning, policy making and achievement of objectives.” According to Mackay (2006) the term institutionalisation is the “…creation of an M&E system, which produces monitoring information and evaluation findings, which are judged valuable by key stakeholders, which are used in the pursuit of good governance, and where there is sufficient demand for the M&E function to ensure its funding and its sustainability for the foreseeable future.” In recent years, with the move towards neo-liberalism and neo-classic economics in the developing countries, traditional approaches to capacity development have moved towards strengthening new public management approaches. Broadly, the move brought about a shift in focus from individual organisations to the wider institutional environment encompassing the private and public sectors and non-government organisations. In the main, the emerging institutionalisation approaches emphasise government service delivery systems, public programs that reach neglected target groups, human resource management, and people-centred development Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 94 (Steenberg, 2013). Thus, the IM&E is a key factor in the transformation of the public sector to become efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of the people (Plaatjie and Porter, 2006). The process of „institutionalisation‟ can be approached from two different perspectives, namely, a micro- perspective where it looks at how to “institutionalise” M&E to support project implementation, and a macro- perspective which looks at how government “institutionalises‟ M&E to achieve its policy objectives (Steenberg, 2013). In addition, the process transforms government departments and the public sector into functional, accountable and transparent systems, it also supports participatory and representative processes. Furthermore, the IM&E in the public sector is pursued to enhance public policy and service delivery, and as such, must be vigorously implemented to achieve results (Engela and Ajam, 2010). In this process it is critical to continuously isolate institutional, structural and systemic factors that may work against or support implementation (Steenberg, 2013). It is also critical that there is requisite capacity in the public sector that is linked to a results-based method (Plaatjie and Porter, 2006). On the whole, the IM&E process helps implementers to have a better understanding of the various phases of policy making and implementation. Over the years, many developing countries in Latin America and Africa have developed strategies aimed at the IM&E, the key trends are based on policy making, especially on budgeting, policy development, management and accountability (World Bank, 2006). Although attempts towards „institutionalisation‟ are tailored to meet country specific priorities, based on the Latin American experience. However, Mackay (2006) cautions against “over- engineering” as it might alienate strategic partners, and he argues that „institutionalisation‟ fails because of a lack of ownership of the project, lack of a modern culture based on Evidence-Based Decision Making, poor systems and processes, among others. Although the benefits of the „institutionalisation‟ of M&E to enhance project implementation and promote accountability are appreciated, “if institutionalisation is badly conceptualised and implemented the process may lead to a waste of state and donor resources,” (Plaatjie and Porter, 2006). 2.3. Monitoring and Evaluation: An Overview of the South African Context The importance of M&E in SA government departments and public sector transformation is articulated clearly in the SA Presidency‟s Mid-Term Review document, which states that “M&E is the life-blood of sound and efficient planning and implementation, and for M&E to add value to policymaking, policy implementation and to the broader process of social transformation, it has to be „institutionalised‟ at all levels. M&E should be based on objective measurements that reflect the ideals of the Constitution: to improve the quality of life of all South Africans and ensure that South Africa contributes to the creation of a better Africa and a better world,” (The Presidency, 2007). The Government–Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (GWM&EF) aims to “provide an integrated, encompassing framework for M&E principles, practices and standards to be used throughout government, and function as an apex-level information system, which draws from the component systems in the framework to deliver useful M&E products for its users.” (The Presidency, 2007). The GWM&EF also describes how M&E should be practiced at the institutional level and linked with managerial systems such as planning, budgeting and project management. In addition, it sets out reporting requirements, accountability structures and the legal mandate relevant to the government wide system (Engela and Ajam, 2010). The M&E Implementation Guidelines and the Training Guides provide the necessary means to be employed in the implementation of M&E. The National Treasury (2008) advocates an M&E that employs a mixed method, geared towards empowerment, promotes learning, and serves a transformational purpose. At the same time, the Public Service Commission (2008) Basic Concept on Monitoring & Evaluation explains the values and the concepts in practice as well as analysis of the performance all government departments‟ policies, programmes and projects. In this context, the Ministry on M&E in the Presidency plays a vital role with regards to coordination, monitoring, evaluation, and communication on government policies and programmes, as well as accelerates integrated service delivery (The Presidency, 2007). At least, in policy if not in practice, SA has developed vast M&E mechanisms to help harmonise corporate governance and intergovernmental relation sto improve results (Plaatjie and Porter, 2013). M&E is instituted according to Section 195(1) (c) which states that “Public administration must be development-oriented.” The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) states that “institutions or government programmes should be designed in such a manner that they comply with this principle.” Thus, M&E takes an all-inclusive approach that involves government, public and private sectors, donor organisations, non-governmental organisations and the broad citizenry, who are the intended recipients of government programmes. As such, the broad GM&EEF is modeled around the Constitutional principles of the “separation of powers within the different spheres of government, intergovernmental relations, national development plan and the various departmental objectives,” (Engela and Ajam, 2010). The framework is promulgated and regulated around the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), which is supported by institutions such as the Auditor-General, National Treasury and the Public Service Commission (Kusek and Rist, 2004). M&E in SA is further bolstered by the establishment of the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the Presidency to among others, introduce an outcomes-based approach to detail planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. In particular, to promote M&E in government; monitor the performance of public sector servants at national and provincial departments and municipalities; as well as monitor basic service delivery. Upon adoption of the National Development Plan (NDP), to achieve progress in the implementation of economic and social reforms, the adoption of the GM&EF became essential in the formulation, implementation and review of national government policy, since it allows for provincial and municipal nuances, establishes a minimum threshold to be adhered to by all spheres of government and public entities. Built around the logical framework, policy development, programme design and service delivery are interlinked in a programme management (PM) approach. Generally, programmes are designed to attain the long-term departmental objectives, however, they will have immediate measurable deliverables. In this instance, deliverables are designed to be specific, realistic in time frames, allow for interventions and be measurable. Programmes are implemented through an integrated and interrelated process of identification, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Each component, managed by a sub-unit, which is responsible to identify institutional issues that Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 95 relate to both programme and process, if need be, provide capacity and skills development training. To support programme implementation and ensure that the objectives are achieved, M&E establishes process indicators which measure what happens during implementation. In this way, „institutionalisation of M&E is allowed to permeate all levels of government policy and making and implementation. In light of the literature reviewed, this paper will explore the institutionalizing of M&E in one government department in SA, namely the DRD&LR using the case study methodology explained below. 3. Research Methodology The research questions justify a qualitative approach, as it “employs a multi-method strategy, an interpretive analysis, naturalistic approach and attempts to understand and interpret phenomena,” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005) and its use in the M&E processes emerged in the late 1980s as a counter reaction to the dominance of quantitative methods (May, 2011). Consequently, the qualitative method with its flexibility to collect data economically and align it to the project is useful in M&E research design (Jha et al., 2007). 4. Data Collection The tools used included questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions, informal interactions, observations, as well as use of already published secondary data (Creswell, 2003). The diversity of tools and techniques used for the research ensures cross-validation and cross-fertilisation of data (Blanche and Painter, 2006) and the triangulation of data “gives an acceptable degree of objectivity to the subjective perspectives” (Royce et al., 2005). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts, informants and other key stakeholders. The process provided an opportunity for exchange of thoughts and views by both the interviewer and interviewee, thus enriching the learning and growth (Rubin, 2005). The almost hour-long interviews were both face to face and/or telephonic, and the focus was on the interviewees‟ understanding of M&E from the SA government‟s perspective, institutional arrangements and capacity. The primary researcher took detailed notes and also used an audio recorder. The primary researcher also facilitated a focus group meeting with senior management at the DRD&LR to probe issues on IM&E, institutional arrangements, organisational structures and capacity within the department. Nonparticipant observation is a data collection method used extensively in case study research in which the researcher enters a social system to observe events, activities, and interactions with the aim of gaining a direct understanding (Liu and Mattis, 2005). The observations allowed the primary researcher to gain insight on “what happens naturally within an environment, allowing the researcher to draw understanding and learning,” (Liu and Mattis, 2005). The observation process also allowed the primary researcher to witness and document the organisational dynamics and processes on how IM&E is being conducted. The researcher developed an observation guide that detailed the settings, participants, and what happened (Babbie, 2002). The observations also lasted for about an hour, during which time, the researcher made detailed notes and recorded proceedings for analysis later. 5. Sample and Sampling Since in qualitative research, “sampling is a deliberate selection of the appropriate candidates to be included in the study, based on purpose of the study,” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005) purposive sampling the preferred method for selecting participants. As a non-probability sampling method, it allowed interviewees to identify other possible candidates to be interviewed, and the assumption is that the interviewees would know others who are familiar with the research matter (Morgan, 2008). In view of the nature and scope of the research, the availability of participants, time limitations and anticipated costs, a linear-snowball sampling technique was considered appropriate for this purpose (Babbie, 2002). By using a case study, the researchers took a broad over-view of the emergence of M&E as a „movement” to support programme implementation in the NDRD & LR, especially the M&E Unit, which oversees the transfer of landownership through participatory processes. In its mandate, the aforementioned unit continuously monitors land claims from the stage of lodgment, as well as evaluates the process at certain critical intervals (Lahiff, 2010). Overall, the focus of the unit is on both the external and internal variables that impact on the process, as well as oversee the various stakeholders and civil society formations that are integral to the process (Lahiff, 2010). The primary researcher interviewed personnel who are involved with the implementation of M&E. 6. Data Analysis The approach adopted was based on the work by Friese (2012) who stresses the “interlink of noticing, collecting and thinking as ongoing back and forth processes, because the researcher is the main character in qualitative data analysis.” The data analysis involved triangulation of various sources of data to standardise the reliability and validity of the data collected (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In addition to creating a Micro Word File for all data, the researchers used the Atlas software (CAQDAS) to code topics and summarise them into themes, for analysis. 7. Findings It became evident that the DRD&LR‟s M&E Unit has sixteen (16) dedicated staff who are specialists in M&E with 69% junior staff; 19% in senior management and 12% in middle management. It also became apparent that severally and jointly, there exists a common vision of accountability, good governance, transparency, transformation, good performance and service delivery. It emerged that M&E is an integral part of policy-making and implementation, rather than an appendage, both at a micro and macro level, and Figure 1 represents the „institutionalisation‟ of the M&E framework. It is also evident that the department‟s framework replicates the national framework, through which (at national, provincial and local level) programme implementation is supported and stakeholder participation is enhanced. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 96 Figure-1. DRD&LR Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. Source: PSC (2008) Basic Concepts in Monitoring and Evaluation (p, 12) Figure 1 also reflects the process, organisation structures, as well as integrated internal systems to bolster service delivery and ensure comprehensive programme implementation support. In addition, it fosters interaction and interrelationships both internal and external, ensures knowledge management, information flow, learning, capacity building and training. Basically, the structure is designed to provide an integrated, overarching framework of M&E principles, practices and standards to be used throughout by government to improve the accountability of politicians and enhance managerial controls. Figure 2 reflects that the overall focus of the department is on both the external and internal contexts that impact the process, as well as oversees the various stakeholders and civil society formations that are integral to the process. It is also evident from Figure 2 that the contextual frameworks uphold the democratic principles of good governance, accountability, transparency, broad public participation and service delivery. The primary focus here is to highlight both the centrality and „institutionalisation‟ of M&E within the broad context of policy making, programme implementation and participation. Figure-2. Policy-making cycle Source: PSC (2008) Basic Concepts in Monitoring and evaluation (p, 9) 8. Discussion When the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was adopted, it was praised for its radical attempts to bolster good governance, improve accountability and expedite transformation, as well as transform public sector management, support programme implementation and increase service delivery. The framework introduced a more centralised, transparent, participatory and collaborative framework to monitor and evaluate government activities. In the main, the positive support was in response to many years of lack of transformation, rampant corruption, disaffected public servants and poor service delivery, leading to public protest and civil disobedience. As a result, the framework was welcomed as a panacea to the many challenges besetting ministerial performance, government, line departments, state institutions and public enterprises. However, though the framework was welcomed by many stakeholders, the framework has over the years experienced both conceptual challenges and practical hindrances, as a result of weak institutional and structural arrangement, lack of skills, limited capacity, poor knowledge and information management. Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 97 In its wide and diverse scope, including theoretical underpinnings and practice‟s, monitoring and evaluation needs to be adapted to the politics, economics and social milieu of the host country. Inevitably, it cannot ignore the prevailing socio-cultural, government priorities, skills levels and capacity within the broader society and public sector, in particular (Kusek and Rist, 2004). Similarly, according to Patton (2009) taking into consideration local dynamics is important to understanding the developmental challenges of the country. In this context, in South Africa, M&E is instituted according to Section 195(1) (c) which provides that “Public administration must be development-oriented.” Thus, M&E takes an all-inclusive approach that involves government, public and private sectors, donor organisations, non-governmental organisations and the broad citizenry, who are the intended recipients of government programmes. Therefore, upon the adoption of the National Development Plan, to achieve progress in the implementation of economic and social reforms, the adoption of the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework became essential in the formulation, implementation and review of national government policy. As a result, the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, which allows for provincial and municipal nuances, establishes a minimum threshold to be adhered to by all spheres of government and public entities. In doing so, it set a benchmark for further standard-setting, in this way emphasise the learning and development aspects of the framework. As such, despite their variance, the frameworks uphold the democratic principles of good governance, accountability, transparency, broad participation and service delivery. To this end, legislative and regulatory processes are set up to be followed in the public sector, however, interventions by state institutions to take corrective measures are not precluded. A key component in this process is the “Professionalisation” of monitoring and evaluation, which should address the issue of skills, capacities, training, most important reduce the dependence on outside consultants and experts. In addition, performing departments have translated effective leadership into innovative performance improvements among public sector workers. Hopefully, this would build a core of competent and dedicated public sector that is responsive to the needs of the broad public. The institutionalisation of monitoring and evaluation holds a great potential to meet governments development objectives, promote policy-decisions making, enhance implementation and transform the way in which services are delivered in the public sector (Cooley, 2002). For the government and departments, it provides a basis to transform the public sector, ensure compliance with fiscal policy and increase broad stakeholder participation. According to Mackay (2007) the main challenge with departmental monitoring and evaluation processes is to determine whether or not adequate policy and institutional arrangements are put in place to ensure its institutionalisation. However, despite general support many policymakers and practitioners struggle to develop and implement system wide strategies, most resort to ad hoc measures, rather than confront the many challenges presented by theoretical and practical considerations (Mackay, 2007). According to Woolcock (2014) lasting reform and heightened development effectiveness is not just a matter of “designing better policies” but learning how to build widespread organizational capability to implement them. The significance of the institutionalisation of monitoring and evaluation to support good governance and accountability is well established, especially with reference to service delivery to the majority of the citizenry. Aware of the challenges and opportunities, policymakers and practitioners have developed strategies, methods and tools that streamline processes across various spheres of government and departmental units. Similarly, the need to achieve synergies within and between government departments, multinational donors and stakeholders has contributed to the development of methodologies and approaches that harmonise development activities (Mackay, 2006). Moreover, its institutionalisation creates opportunities for possible foreign investments, economic growth, social cohesion and sustainable use of resources (Engela and Ajam, 2010). Although, there are enormous challenges and opportunities there remains a general commitment among donors, governments departments and stakeholders to the adoption of monitoring and evaluation policies and systems to support sustainable development. A key and supported finding is that respondents recognise the importance of M&E, especially with regard to public policy formulation, transformation in the public sector and service delivery. Overall, M&E should build a supportive institutional and structural environment, which clarifies the different roles and responsibilities for the different participants and define the expected outcomes. Efficient institutional and structural arrangement are important to develop the capacity of the user and improve on existing systems. The Presidency, working together with donor agencies, provides support to government departments and government agencies to improve public sector cooperation and coordination to support programme implementation. As such, the line department has supports the development and strengthening of institutional and structural arrangements as an integral components to achieve good governance and service delivery. Both mechanisms highlight that M&E is more than accountability, control measures and assessment of results but include additional purposes such as learning, programme improvement, future planning and augments capacity. Making general conclusions on the institutional and structural arrangements is difficult; given the different organisational mandates and objectives. However, with respect to the DRD&LR, emerging themes emphasise autonomy, decentralisation as well as broad public participation. In addition, “lean” organisational structures are regarded as efficient and effective, as opposed to bloated organisation structures that are unable to deliver on their mandate. In general, results-based frameworks are, arguably, the best suited for greater institutional accountability. To support programme implementation and ensure that the objectives are achieved, M&E establishes, on the one end, process indicators which measure what happens during implementation. On the other end, output indicators are put in place to look at the material and financial outputs, as well as organisational processes and performance measures. Based on the results achieved by the programme, it may be necessary to revisit the initial policy, or aspects of the policy and programme, implementation and resource allocation. In this way, institutionalisation of M&E is allowed to permeate all levels of government policy and making and implementation. 9. Conclusions The review addresses some major issues on the role of the institutionalisation of M&E to support programme implementation. Traditionally, M&E has been driven by exogenous factors, but at the DRD&LR, it has been Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 98 internalized and is driven by internal policies and practices. The Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework offers great flexibility which leads to poor implementation. Although it potentially increases the levels of accountability, good governance, quality of participation and service delivery. Monitoring and evaluation is becoming a powerful tool for public sector transformation and service delivery. Monitoring and evaluation initiatives are implemented as barometers of democracy, equality and equity with different levels of success. 10. Recommendations The challenges facing the institutionalisation of M&E, and the effectiveness of institutional and structural arrangements to support programme implementation needs to be addressed by considering inter-alia, the following recommendations. With respect to the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, there is need to close the theoretical and operational divide by adopting an integrative approach to be used system wide. A shift from the routine-functional approaches to a more process and developmental approach is required. There is need to combine ICT and KM to benefit from existing infrastructure and management systems. Career opportunities should be established for public servants responsible for M&E to strengthen leadership and decision-making. A national platform must be created that brings together the various sectors of society, improves policy-making, implementation and increase public accountability. 11. Limitations and Future Research The „limited‟ availability of information on the “institutionalization” of M&E, specifically on how it is understood, and access to internal documents and work plans, prevented a more comprehensive analysis of the true „state of affairs‟ in the DRD&LR. Although the research looked at various aspect of M&E with special focus on its „institutionalisation,‟ future research could explore the issue of “trust” in M&E in the public sector, because trust could be the single most important factor in the adoption and implementation of M&E systems, as it establishes contact between the citizenry, government and public servants. For example, public servants may be reluctant to institutionalise M&E either because they do not see its relevance or do not trust the process. References Babbie, E., 2002. The basics of social research. 2nd Edn., UK: Oxford University Press. Bamberger, M., 2006. Evaluation capacity building. Creating and developing evaluation organizations: Lessons learned from Africa. Americas, Asia, Australasia and Europe: IOCE Press. Blanche, M. and D. Painter, 2006. Research in practise: Applied methods for social sciences. Pretoria: Juta and Company Press. Cooley, L., 2002. Management systems international. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dahler-Larsen, L., I. Shaw and S. Holland, 2006. Doing qualitative research in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, 2005. Research methods for studying informal aspects in construction project organisation. London: SAGE Publications. Deprez, S., 2008. Development of a planning, learning and accountability system for sustainable development in Indonesia. Bali: Bali Publications. DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell, 1983. The cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Journal of Sociological Review, 2(48): 2-15. Dobrea, R. and C. Ciocoiu, 2010. Standardization in improving of integrated effectiveness of integrated management. Bucharest: Bucharest University. Earl, S., F. Carden and T. Smutylo, 2001. Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programme. Ottawa: IDRC Printers. Engela, R. and T. Ajam, 2010. Evaluation capacity development: Implementing a government-wide M&E system, in DME, (Department of Monitoring and Evaluation) Monitoring and evaluation forum, Pretoria, South Africa, 21: July 2005. Pretoria: Government Press. Friese, S., 2012. Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS-ti. London: SAGE Publications. Gildemyn, M., 2013. A proposed framework to understand civil society organizations involvement in M&E. In Rist, R. Boiley, M. and Martin, F.(Eds). Development evaluation in times of Turbulence, dealing with crises that endanger our future. Herndon: The World Bank Publications. pp: 21-67. Jha, S., R. Viyandra and M. Wilcock, 2007. Governance in the gullies: Democratic responsiveness and leadership. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Kambuwa, M. and M. Wallis, 2002. Performance management. Durban: University of Durban-Westville. Kusek, J.Z. and C. Rist, 2004. Ten steps to a results-based M&E system. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Lahiff, E., 2010. Land reform in South Africa. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. Liu, J. and M. Mattis, 2005. Keeping more women in the leadership pipeline. Ontario: University of Guelph. Mackay, K., 1989. Public sector performance, the critical role of evaluation. Selected Proceedings from a World Bank Seminar. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Mackay, K., 1999. Evaluation capacity development. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Mackay, K., 2000. Monitoring & evaluation: Orientation course. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Mackay, K., 2006. Institutionalisation of M&Es systems to improve public sector management. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Mackay, K., 2007. How to build M&E systems to support better government. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. May, J., 2011. The elusive craft of evaluation capacity. Hewlett Foundation: Hewlett Press. May, J., I. Woolard and S. Klase, 2006. The nature and measurement of poverty and inequality. Cape Town: Davids Press. McNeil, M. and C. Malena, 2010. Demanding good governance. Lessons from social accountability in Africa. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman, 1994. An expanded source book, qualitative data. London: SAGE Publications. Morgan, D., 2008. The Sage encyclopaedia of quantitative research methods. London: Sage Publication. Mosse, D. and E.D. Lewis, 2005. The aid effect. Giving and governing in international development. London: Pluto Press. National Development Plan, 2012. SAs NDP. Available from http://www.gov.za/issues/national-development-plan-2030 [Accessed 19th November 2015]. OECD, 1996. Development partnerships in new global context. Paris: OECD Publications. Patton, M.Q., 2009. Utilisation –focussed evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. Plaatjie, D. and S. Porter, 2006. A growing demand for monitoring and evaluation in Africa. DPME. Johannesburg: Jacana Press. Plaatjie, D. and S. Porter, 2013. The role of monitoring and evaluation in the public service. Johannesburg: Jacana Press. Public Service Commission, 2008. Basic concepts in monitoring and evaluation. Available from httpp//:www.psc.gov.za/documents/docs/guidelines/PSC [Accessed 19 November 2015]. http://www.gov.za/issues/national-development-plan-2030 http://www.psc.gov.za/documents/docs/guidelines/PSC Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2015, 2(2):91-99 99 Royce, A., C. Bruce and J. Singleton, 2005. Approaches to social research. Saint Barbra: University of California Press. Rubin, H., 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Sivagnanasothy, V., 2007. Institutionalization of M&E system in Sri Lanka – lessons learnt, best practices, issues, challenges and the way forward. Available from www.mymande.org/elearning/course-details/2/ [Accessed 19 March 2015]. Solomon, P. and R. Young, 2007. Performance based-earned value. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Ltd Publishers. Steenberg, K., 2013. Advocacy and problem solving. Minnesota: Minnesota: University Press. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Available from http:// www.gov.za [Accessed 19 November 2015]. The National Treasury, 2008. Framework for managing programmes performance. Pretoria: Government Printers. The Presidency, 2007. Policy framework for the government-wide M&E. Pretoria: Government Press. UNDP, 2000. Poverty Report. Transaction Publishers. UNDP, 2013. MDG Progress Report. Lusaka: Transaction Publishers. Woolcock, M., 2014. Integrating qualitative method into investment climate impact evaluation. World bank group. Washington DC: The World Bank Publications. World Bank, 2006. Chile: Policy development review. Poverty reduction and economic management. Washington DC: The World Bank Publishers. Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the authors, Asian Journal of Economics and Empirical Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. http://www.mymande.org/elearning/course-details/2/