Monitoring and Evaluation for Poverty Reduction

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 Theoretical Framework

Introduction

Chapter 3 articulates the theoretical framework, which provides the fundamental guiding principles for this research study. It clarifies from the theoretical perspective the basis on which the concepts and practice of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are built. To do so, it discusses four contemporary theoretical perspectives that explain the logic and practice behind M&E. Thus, theory of change (ToC), results-based management (RBM), managing for development results (MfDRs) and the logical framework approach (LFA) are discussed as constructs that form the broader theoretical basis and guidance for this research. The chapter starts by discussing the ToC phenomenon as the overall theoretical framework that has been adopted to guide this research study. It then discusses the phenomena of RBM, MfDRs and the LFA. For each, it provides background information and definitions and then discusses how the paradigm is linked to and helps to understand M&E. These discussions are regarded as important because the whole-of-government M&E system (WoGM&ES) for Zambia is expected to be developed and guided by the principles entrenched in clearly defined theoretical foundations (GRZ, 2017b; Mackay, 2007).
Theory of change (ToC) was adopted to guide this study. However, Chapter 3 describes the other theoretical approaches (that is, RBM, MfDRs and LFA) to provide a broader understanding of ToC and the relationships and linkages between the concepts and practice of M&E. This is to demonstrate how a functional and a well-institutionalised WoGM&ES contributes to the attainment of good governance towards the achievement of higher-level goals of poverty reduction and sustained socio-economic development. A cause-effect relationship between a country-level WoGM&ES and the ultimate desired development results of poverty reduction and improved wellbeing of people is presented in the framework of the ToC. Chapter 3 also provides a synthesis of the theoretical framework of the research. It clarifies that although the ToC provides the overall theoretical perspective for the study, RBM, MfDRs and LFA help to amplify the understanding of the need, relationships and linkages between M&E and the good governance agenda of governments and development agencies towards poverty reduction.

Theory of change

The field of M&E strongly inspires the theoretical foundations of the ToC, which equally provides the theoretical basis for M&E (Weiss, 2000). There seems to be a chicken- and- egg dilemma relationship. In the literature of development studies and materials on management of development interventions, ToC is the predominant contemporary theory guiding phenomenon in pursuing the success of such efforts.
Consequently, ToC, also known as programme theory, forms the theoretical framework for this research study. Many theorists and M&E practitioners and scholars have attempted to provide meaning to the concept of ToC. Rogers (2008:30) describes it as follows:
Theory of change, variously referred to as programme theory, programme logic (Funnell, 1997), theory-based evaluation (Weiss, 1995, 1998; Albert et al., 1998), theory-driven evaluation (Chen, 1990), theory-of-action (Schorr, 1997), intervention logic (Nagarajan & Vanheukelen, 1997), impact pathway analysis (Douthwaite et al., 2003b), and programme theory-driven evaluation science (Donaldson, 2005) refers to a variety of ways of developing a causal modal linking programme inputs and activities to a chain of intended or observed outcomes, and then using this model to guide the evaluation.
ToC denotes a systematic visual way of presenting and sharing an understanding and perspective of the relationships among the resources available to operationalise a programme, planned activities and changes or desired results (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Many development commentators have advocated for the adoption and utilisation of the ToC. According to Brousselle and Champagne (2011) and Rogel (2012), ToC has received a great deal of attention in programme evaluation for over two decades, signifying its important role in the implementation of development interventions and to the poverty reduction agenda.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the thinking behind the ToC, demonstrating how a development intervention’s inputs lead to executing activities and how these activities help to achieve the high-level results of outputs, outcomes and desired impacts. The main thrust of the ToC is the cause-effect relationship of development results (that is, inputs-activities-outputs-outcomes-impacts).
To understand the concept of ToC, it is perhaps important to appreciate the concept of the ‘black box’, which was popular before ToC became ‘the buzz words’ in M&E. For many years, black box theory was used to initiate, design, implement and evaluate development interventions such as projects, programmes and policies (Rey, Brousselle & Dedobbeleer, 2012). It did not concern itself fully with the understanding or clarification of the cause-effect relationship in development programming, but the focus was on the resources or inputs required to undertake a development action. As described by Jacob and Ferrer (2000:1), ‘the black box is a plan-of-work programming that assembles the inputs, delivers them, then proceeds to measure the outputs. Thus, if the black box represents the real world, we find ourselves on the outside, trying to look in. We stand outside the black box, delivering the “inputs” and expecting the “outputs”. We have no idea why the programme may be a success or failure, it all happens inside the black box.’ The main interest in the black box approach was to mobilise inputs or resources, deliver them, and expect immediate results. This was done without a deliberate well-conceived understanding of the interlinkages and causal relationships between inputs and the anticipated outputs. Because of the absence of linking aspects or elements that help achieve the intended development results, rethinking became inevitable. ToC was therefore a new way of looking at the efficient conceptualisation and achievement of development results, hence going beyond black box thinking.
Vogel (2012) regards ToC as an approach based on outcome-level results in which critical thinking is applied to designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating development initiatives. Worldwide, ToC is used by stakeholders such as multi-lateral and bilateral development agencies, civil society organisations, governments, international non-state actor organisations and research programmes to support development outcomes. Rogers (2011) adds that ToC refers to the process by which change comes about for an individual, organisation or a community, while Sridharan and Naikama (2010) agree that a programme theory should ideally describe the hypothesised processes by which a programme can bring about change. For W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2004), a programme logic model represents a roadmap of programme highlights in terms of how it is expected to work and the required activities, including how desired outcomes and impact will be achieved. Thus far, the ToC has much to offer to development discourse. As long as there is full stakeholder participation when developing development interventions, ToC may guarantee shared planning and understanding of organisational and programme goals. In addition, rigorous testing of assumptions may be made in the process of planning, budgeting and implementing such deliverables, thereby improving accountability and learning functions (Bickman, 1987; Leeuw, 2003; McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999; Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004; Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2012; White, 2009; Wholey, 1983, 1987).
TOC has been used for a long time by stakeholders to define their intended development interventions. Provided that a programme or any development intervention has been described in terms of the logic model, Chen (2012), Funnell and Rogers (2011) assert that critical measures of performance can be identified and determined. A sequence of cause-and-effect relationships could effectively be illustrated using logic models, which represent a systems approach to communicating pathways to achieving desired development results. Furthermore, Rogers (2014) and the International Network on Strategic Philanthropy (2005) simply sees the ToC as a clear explanation of how activities are perceived in terms of producing the intended higher-level outcomes and impacts for any given development effort.
This research study intends to demonstrate that M&E are important functions of good governance and that building stronger WoGM&ESs by governments becomes inevitable and a much-desired undertaking. That way, development decisions at all levels would be enhanced because they would be informed by timely and relevant information. For that reason, results of this research will be useful towards the improvement of Zambia’s public sector M&E arrangements. The ToC is a helpful construct to conceptualise success by using a clear path-way to realising desired results and overall improved living standards of the people, especially the poor and marginalised majority.
Governments and development agencies often have ambitious goals, and so planning and implementing specific on-the-ground strategies to those goals is not an easy undertaking. In such instances, theories of change are vital to development programming and evaluation success for a number of reasons. To gain desired results, development programmes need to be grounded in good theory. Therefore, by developing a ToC based on good theory, managers and implementers can be better assured that their programmes are delivering the right activities for the desired outcomes. Thus, by creating a ToC programmes are easier to sustain, bring to scale, and evaluate, since each step—from the ideas behind it, to the outcomes it hopes to provide, to the resources needed—are clearly defined within the theory. Figure 3.2 below shows a flow of how different results for a development programme can be achieved—desired vision can be attained through putting in place appropriate inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact.
Figure 3.2 below provides an illustration of the ToC for building a national-level M&E system that is meant to contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development. The representation is significant in that success is conceived in a simplified manner. ToC signifies a results-chain that brings together fundamental elements of development action, harmonising and connecting them to achieve higher-level goals and objectives, in this context, the outcomes and overall development impact.
The action plan leads to the production of a range of outputs, such as number of officials trained in M&E; harmonised data systems; improved quality and focus of available monitoring indicators; improved quality and range of evaluations completed; strengthened incentives for ministries to conduct and use M&E A set or package of activities to strengthen country M&E functions is undertaken by the government and donors, such as national seminars on country M&E systems; diagnoses of national/sectoral M&E functions; audits of data systems; provision of M&E training— including trainer training-or scholarships to officials, NGOs, universities/research institutes, parliamentary staff; various types of evaluation are conducted on pilot/demonstration basis M&E systems are not only directly related to, but are important determining elements in the poverty reduction agendas of successful countries. The cause-effect relationship is a strategic theoretical way of appreciating long-term results from the planning point of view. Figure 3.2 demonstrates that a country’s M&E system should be able to capture data and information from all activities of government interventions to impact level. However, the M&E system should be a public system that allows non-governmental actors such as the civil society, academia and donors to take an active part in analysing government operations and utilising M&E information. Other key arms of governance such as parliament should be strongly linked to the M&E system in utilising the M&E information.
M&E systems fulfil an important function in the good governance agenda of aid-dependent developing countries, especially in their bid to reduce poverty for citizens. Mackay (2007:9) asserts that M&E can provide unique information about government performance of projects, programmes and policies. Because M&E provides performance information of donors that support the work of governments, it assists in identifying what works and what does not work, and in making us understand the reasons. Thus, ToC becomes a crucial and appropriate theoretical phenomenon for this research study to provide a pathway to the attainment of development results through a stronger WoGM&ES for Zambia.

Results-Based Management

The evolution of the Results Based Management (RBM) approach from the 1990s onwards seemingly contributed to the effective and efficient delivery of goods and services by public sector and other development agencies. Today, the RBM approach is being used widely in the developed and less developed countries (LDCs) as a practically oriented management approach, including results frameworks or logic models, results-based strategic planning, risk management, results-focused budgeting, and results-based M&E (OECD & World Bank, 2006, 2007, 2008). In line with the ToC, the concept of RBM is based on the cause-and-effect relationships in which inputs and activities of an intervention lead logically to higher orders of results. In this context, development results entail well-sequenced and time-bound changes connected to a series of management phases in the programming cycle for a development policy, project or programme (Mackay, 2007; Raimondo, 2016). The main emphasis of RBM is the realisation of higher-level outcomes that are meant to improve the wellbeing of people. In other words, RBM is concerned with how accountable development interventions and their programming are in attaining desired medium and long-term results (World Bank, 2007b; OECD & World Bank, 2006, 2007, 2008).
RBM represents a management strategy that is characterised by clear and distinctive framework and tools for organisational strategic planning, performance monitoring and evaluation, risk management meant to measure and attain significant changes in the way development agencies operate (Hauge, 2001). The main purposes of RBM include the fulfilment of accountability obligations through performance reporting and improving the organisational learning function (Mackay, 2007; Meier, 2003; World Bank, 2007a; OECD & World Bank, 2006).
RBM is a management strategy that is used widely by private, public and non-profit making organisations around the world. For instance, as a result of the popularity and positive gains anticipated from M&E systems, several international initiatives have sprung up to enforce the implementation of the RBM approach. Such initiatives as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their successor the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative under the Poverty Reduction Strategy approach spearheaded by the World Bank and IMF, Paris Declaration (PD), World Trade Organization (WTO) membership, International Development Association (IDA) funding, European Union Structural Funds and Transparency International, European Union (EU) enlargement and accession have embraced M&E (World Bank, 2012a). These provide strong backing for functional M&E systems. In fact, the MDGs were pioneers in adopting the most ambitious global initiative of using a results-based approach to poverty reduction and improving people’s living standards (Hardlife & Zhou, 2013:72).
At best, therefore, RBM emphasises the performance of a development intervention and results. It is holistic and futuristic in practice and intent in that it endeavours to provide current evidence and future information about development interventions under implementation (UNDG, 2010; UNESCO, 2015).
Thus, RBM is a tool that is implementable through the development and usage of functional M&E systems. These systems are meant to enable governments to plan and meet the aspirations of their citizens and other stakeholders in terms of results such as improvements in human development and economic growth. Therefore, in view of implementing a results-based 63 management system for better governance, a country or institution may build and sustain functional M&E systems by strengthening existing ones or building new ones.
In addition to defining and describing the concept of RBM, linking RBM to the functions of M&E is an important aspect. Thus, the linkages between RBM and M&E are inevitably stronger. M&E refers to the systematic collection of performance information pertaining to a given intervention against stated desired objectives (OECD & World Bank, 2007). Consequently, such information is then used as input in internal and external organisational management decision- and policy-making processes for purposes of improvement. To that extent, M&E offers strong operational models, frameworks and tools that are useful for measuring performance, which ultimately and comprehensively leads to increased effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of development interventions (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010; Coleman, 1987; Rogers, 2008; World Bank, 1997). Hence, it can be observed that the two notions of M&E and RBM resonate, despite the practical challenge of a seemingly chicken-and-egg dilemma5 relationship, which tends to exist between the concepts. Schultz (2009) and UNDG (2010), in affirming this view, assert that RBM represents a strategy for enhancing the M&E function and its culture, particularly in the context of strengthening a country’s WoGM&ES, while the activities of M&E could effectively assist in realising the objectives pursuable under RBM.
More precisely, M&E has been increasingly adopted to assess the achievement of development results since the 1990s. This was the period in which RBM approaches came into wider use by public institutions and international development agencies. In the same period, the RBM approach became predominant. Thus, the application of M&E could have brought about the emergence and popularisation of the RBM approach among development agencies, including governments (Schultz, 2009).
Therefore, the relationship between RBM and M&E is intrinsic and the two are a fundamental way of achieving great development results. In that sense, it is crucial to ensure that M&E is pursued within the broader context of RBM, and vice versa, and that practitioners and learners of both take this important relationship into account. The conceptualisation of success in development management in the context of RBM and M&E is significant, thus, building and sustaining a stronger WoGM&ES is essential for the Government of the Republic of Zambia.

Managing for Development Results

Managing for development results (MfDRs) is another concept that has become common among practitioners of M&E around the globe. Like the ToC and RBM approach, MfDRs has become a widely adopted and practised paradigm among public sector and non-state development actors. Like the RBM approach, MfDRs is understood broadly as a management strategy whose emphasis is the achievement of development results at all levels of an intervention. The approach uses performance information to support enhanced decision-making processes through the utilisation of technical tools for strategic planning, progress monitoring, outcome evaluation and risk management (AfCoP-MfDRs, 2014). At the core of the MfDRs strategy is the concrete and continuous utilisation of evidence to inform all phases of development processes. Typically, the approach involves shared tenets of good governance, which include objective setting, transparency, evidence-based decision making, and constant adaptation and improvement (World Bank, 2007a; OECD & World Bank, 2006, 2007).
The utilisation of results in informing development processes is the central focus of the MfDRs strategy. This is so because governments and other development agencies usually find themselves undertaking efforts to alleviate poverty without using evidence generated from systems of monitoring and evaluation or indeed any accountability feedback. In that regard, the MfDR strategy puts an emphasis on the acquisition of evidence by those in charge of public policy and decision making and directly utilise such information for development purposes. The strategy contends that in the midst of scarce resources in the custody of development agencies, including governments, it is incumbent upon public managers and agencies to seek and use evidence for planning and designing development interventions.
The historical perspective in Table 3.1 shows how MfDRs as a concept has emerged over the years and how it has led to the transformation of the global development agenda.
Furthermore, there has been an evolution at global level of the adoption and utilisation of the MfDRs approach by development agencies and governments in their efforts to lower poverty levels, attain equitable and sustainable economic growth, and improve the definition and measurement of development results. In its broader scope, development effectiveness refers to countries and agencies being able to meet their collective development outcomes using the right tools to measure progress towards desired results, report on them, and improve performance by continuously using the lessons learned (Mackay, 2007; OECD & World Bank, 2006).
MfDRs, like related concepts such as the RBM and LFA, is focused on the achievement of development results. Since the Monterrey6 Conference of 2002, there has been a focus on managing the work of the development community (which comprises partner countries and donors) to achieve the maximum development results. Thus, although there were efforts before 2002, the new era of a shared and strengthened understanding concerning the need to think about results and ways to sustainably realise them from the beginning to the end of an intervention has become the emphasis. However, this demands regular monitoring of progress in order to continue shaping the effort so that the expected results were achieved as planned (Mackay, 2007; Meier, 2003; World Bank, 2007b).
In 2004 at the Second Round Table Meeting on Managing for Results, principles for the MfDRs were agreed by development stakeholders. MfDRs has stipulated principles that guide its practice and these include aligned programming results-based M&E; keeping simplified measurement and reporting; managing for results, not managing by results; and learning and decision making using information from results (Schacter, 2000 & Mackay, 2006).
OECD and World Bank (2006, 2007, 2008) and Kusek and Rist (2004) add that although in the current understanding, RBM is synonymous with MfDRs, accountability has been the only core focus of some approaches to RBM. Instead, MfDRs departs from this basic undertaking by incorporating newer and more innovative ideas about country ownership, harmonisation, collaboration, partnership, and alignment. In addition, MfDRs focuses continuously on country outcome performance, which is a higher management standard than giving prominence to short-term results only. Table 3.2 shows the three core focus areas for MfDRs.
The information in Table 3.2 illustrates how the MfDRs approach has emerged as a centrepiece of efforts at global level to improve public management. At best, MfDRs is broadly considered an example of best practice in development management. Unequivocally, in an attempt to achieve desired development results, MfDRs focuses on improving all financial, technological, human, and natural resources, internal and external. In that regard, it becomes inevitable to view MfDRs not only as a methodology, but as a way of thinking and acting, built and linked on a practically oriented toolbox for enhanced public management (OECD & World Bank, 2007, 2008).
Therefore, to achieve success, it is crucial to invest in the development and nurture of a ‘performance culture’ that could be attained operationally through full implementation of the MfDRs approach. Nevertheless, this kind of development achievement can come effectively by creating incentivising results-focused management systems and internal preconditions through targeted human resource and organisational development (AfCoP-MfDRs, 2014). However, capacity development alone would not be enough, thus requiring a stronger and sustained leadership and political buy-in, of which both are essential ingredients in pursuing the fuller benefits of institutionalising a MfDRs approach. Consequently, the role of leadership remains central to constantly clarifying the essential organisational objectives and functions through setting the development course. Additionally, a visionary leadership provides a clear model of operation and works to inculcate a transformational development agenda at individual and institutional levels pursuant to a results orientation. In that regard, sound leadership develops and seeks to sustain an incentive structure that assists in realising a change in institutional and cultural conduct (Meier, 2003). Further, Hauge (2001) affirmed that the MfDRs approach is essential in that it represents an essential shift in such key aspects as policy process, predominantly in the nature of thinking, acting and overall management in the wider scope of the public sector. In the absence of prudent public management approaches like MfDRs, governments will tend to perform poorly in good governance tenets of accountability, transparency and reward mechanisms.
Therefore, MfDRs denotes a strategy for prudent management and measurement of development performance, and emphasises sustainable improvements in country-specific and organisational results. In that context, a result is a describable or measurable development change emanating from a cause and effect relationship (OECD/DAC, 2004). According to the World Bank (2007) and Mackay (2007), MfDRs contributes to processes of policy- and decision-making improvement by making available evidence-based information on results. This is achieved through a range of tools and techniques, which include strategic planning, progress monitoring, risk management, and outcome evaluation. To a large extent, MfDRs is aimed at holding development actors such as governments, international agencies and individuals accountable for delivering desired results to the citizens they serve. Therefore, country systems are required to promote the managing for results agenda in order to have an improved and sustainable country development results (OECD & World Bank, 2006, 2007, 2008).
MfDRs has recently evolved to incorporate a range of policy issues, including country ownership, harmonisation and alignment of donor efforts, international goals and standards, accountability for development results, and the participation of civil society and other interest groups (Davies et. al., 2009; Hassan, 2005). Therefore, advocates of good governance see this approach as a way for governments to be accountable to their own citizens and to donors. Further, as can be seen in Figure 3.3, MfDRs ensures that all development efforts must be informed from inception by the end result. Such a long-term planning horizon is useful in allocating all forms of resources and efforts in a focused and meaningful way.
MfDRs interrogates a number of critical development aspects and these assist in achieving results. Information flow, mainly in terms of its supply and demand, is a central aspect of the MfDRs approach. In particular, the capacity of a country to provide credible and well-analysed statistical data and information, and ultimately how these are put to use by users, becomes pertinent to success (Hauge & Mackay, 2004; Lucas et al., 2004).
The linkages between MfDRs and M&E can be demonstrated in a number of ways. Like ToC, RBM and LFA, MfDRs is premised on the elements of a results chain, namely the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, as illustrated in Table 3.3. It is also upon these elements that M&E is conducted properly and thus the linkages between MfDRs and M&E could be easily appreciated.
The linkages between MfDRs and M&E are critical in many ways, and are self-reinforcing. While M&E provides useful techniques, tools, methodology, data and information to achieve the desired results under MfDRs, the results of the MfDRs approach become a significant feedback for strengthening and undertaking M&E exercises successfully (Mackay, 2007; World Bank, 2007b).
M&E offers a strong foundation for anchoring performance measurement tools and models, which ultimately contribute to increased effectiveness in the development and management of interventions (Brushett, 1998). For instance, since the 1990s, M&E has become the most used way of assessing the achievement of results. This was at a time that approaches for results-based management (RBM) came into wider utilisation in country-level public institutions and international development agencies. This evolution of adopting and using results-based M&E continues today and is a major component of the MfDRs toolbox, helping governments and agencies to systematically measure project and programme outcomes (Hauge & Mackay, 2004). In that regard, M&E is viewed as an important component in helping achieve the objectives of MfDRs.
To practically embrace and institutionalise MfDRs as a results-oriented and management strategy, leaders of development institutions and governments should propagate and promote the agenda. At the same time, leaders are supposed to develop transformational systems of M&E, which provide relevant information for other development processes. Lopez-Acevedo, Krause and Mackay (2012) and Hwang (2014) caution that a lot of challenges are faced by national leaders in putting in place stronger M&E systems under the broader MfDRs reform agenda. Instead of focusing on the utilisation of lower-level traditional process results of inputs, activities and outputs, it is important for agencies of development to have a long-term horizon of desired development results (Mackay, 2007; World Bank, 2007a).

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgments
Declaration
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abstract
List of acronyms and abbreviations
CHAPTER 1 Situating the Research Study
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Geographical location of Zambia
1.3 Rationale for the research problem
1.4 Background to the research study
1.5 Statement of the research problem
1.6 Research objectives
1.7 Significance of the study
1.8 Justification of the choice of Zambia as a case study
1.9 Scope of the study
1.10 Methodological approach
1.11 Definition of key concepts
1.12 Outline of the thesis and chapter layout
1.13 Conclusion
CHAPTER 2 Monitoring and Evaluation for Poverty Reduction
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The notion of monitoring and evaluation
2.3 Historical perspective of monitoring and evaluation
2.4 Importance of monitoring and evaluation systems
2.5 Linking monitoring and evaluation systems to good governance
2.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 Theoretical Framework
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theory of change
3.3 Results-Based Management
3.4 Managing for Development Results
3.5 Logical framework approach
3.6 Theoretical synthesis
3.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4 Conceptual Framework
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Overview and background
4.3 Demand and supply sides of monitoring and evaluation systems
4.4 Essentials of a functional whole-of-government monitoring and evaluation system
4.5 Ten steps for building a whole-of-government monitoring and evaluation system
4.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements in Zambia
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Zambia: An overview
5.3 National development planning in Zambia
5.4 Types of development plans
5.5 Implementation and coordination frameworks for National Development Plans
5.6 Roles and responsibilities of key institutions in managing national plans
5.7 Monitoring and evaluation in Zambia
5.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6 Research Design and Methodology
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Diagnostic checklists to assess Monitoring and Evaluation systems
6.3 Choice of the country-level monitoring and evaluation diagnostic checklist
6.4 Choice and justification for the area of study
6.5 Research design
6.6 Secondary research data sources
6.7 Primary research data sources
6.8 Target population, study units and sampling design
6.9 Data collection procedures and instruments
6.10 Data analysis
6.11 Ethical considerations
6.12 Limitations of the study
6.13 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7 Diagnosis of Zambia’s Whole-of-Government Monitoring and Evaluation System
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Summary presentation of research findings
7.3 Discussion and analysis
7.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 8 Proposed Model for Zambia’s Enhanced Whole-of-Government Monitoring and Evaluation System
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Cornerstones for a stronger whole-of-government monitoring and evaluation system
8.3 The new model
8.4 The proposed model vis-à-vis the two cornerstones
8.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 9 Summary and Recommendations
9.1 Summary
9.2 Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT