MOPAN's relevance
Main findings • An implicit, core assumption of MOPAN is that answering members’ needs for factual information can be useful to MOs. • In response, MOPAN assessments focus on formal institutional processes judged against criteria and standards set by its members. • The indicators largely target minimum standards and are not adapted to the context of specific MOs. They can often provide information that MOs already have judged against standards that the MOs may not consider fully aligned to their context. • MOPAN has attempted to address this by including SDG-related indicators, by adapting the methodology to each MO, and by leaving room for the judgement of expert assessors. This only partially addresses the issue of obtaining information relevant to MOs’ needs. • The process of developing a SEAH framework took an entirely different approach whereby assessment criteria and standards were co-constructed with users rather than being imposed from without. This resulted in greater uptake.
Adapting to a changing multilateral context The current context differs from the one that led to MOPAN’s creation. This is not to say that MOPAN no longer has a role to play in the multilateral context. Rather, that its role – and opportunities for influence – have likely changed as the situation has evolved. A first area of change concerns the dimensions of accountability. MOPAN was established prior to RBM systems, being a common expectation, when a results orientation was more a vision than a practice. This is no longer the case. Important organisational transformations occurred in the 2000s and in the 2010s that MOPAN assessments captured and recorded.86 Issues remain, and the standards are being raised from one MOPAN cycle to the next, leading to more demanding requirements.87 But in the end, most multilateral stakeholders insist that the problems identified by MOPAN (e.g. the evaluation function, results-based budgeting) are known. What is less apparent is how to effectively develop and implement them in practice so they continue to function in complex, decentralised environments and remain useful. In parallel with progress in results orientation and related fields, some criticisms have also emerged about the fundamental assumptions of RBM and therefore about MOPAN: • Institutional performance arrangements might not automatically lead to better delivery and, indeed, might even do quite the opposite.88 Institutionalist processes such as 86 87 88
See e.g. Knill, C., & Bauer, M. W. (2007). Theorizing Management Reforms in International Organizations. In M. W. Bauer & C. Knill (Éds.), Management Reforms in International Organizations (p. 191‑200). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG. Most recently done in 2019. MOPAN/SC(2019)6 There is a “need to acknowledge the inherent disconnect between an outcome (“results”) orientation that governments and other public sector organizations say they want, with a focus on processes, based largely upon following prescribed and generally inflexible rules and regulations.” Perrin, B., & Tyrrell, T. (2021). Changing bureaucracies: Adapting to uncertainty, and how evaluation can help. Routledge. P. 205.
92
