What Theory of Change for MOPAN?

MOPAN has a logic model. Through a sequential process, its products lead to contributions to achieving the SDGs. Some crucial assumptions have guided this evaluation: 1. MOPAN was unlikely to be the main engine behind such desirable, far-reaching goals; 2. specific contributions were nonetheless possible, among other drivers, and 3. it was worthwhile to verify whether such contributions could be identified. To examine MOPAN’s contributions required identifying the different layers of its context, which affect the maximal extent of the impact that it can reasonably have in context: At the highest level, MOPAN should be seen in the context of the recurring criticisms of multilateral organisations and the multilateral system during their short history. Despite a repeated criticism for failing to adapt, MOs do adapt and evolve continuously.94 One example is that MOs have been adopting processes designed to improve their performance through a RBM orientation. We define RBM as emphasising performance rather than compliance in budgeting, performing, and reporting on operations, using information on results provided through performance measurement and/or evaluation. It includes but is not limited to RBM frameworks.

MOPAN is seen as an instrument in the accountability relationship between donor countries and MOs that support this RBM orientation. To provide information on performance, MOPAN uses an “institutionalist” lens: it is assumed that

1. performance is a matter of institutional arrangements (policies, guidelines, frameworks…); 2. staff will broadly respect these arrangements, and 3. this will lead to better delivery. MOPAN therefore lists a set of institutional arrangements that are supposed to be found in all assessed MOs, regardless of what they do. This list reflects what member countries see as good standards of performance, to which they hold MOs accountable. MOPAN assessments are not binding, however. MOPAN works through a tacit arrangement between members and MOs: MOs agree to be assessed but are not bound to address or respond to MOPAN findings through any particular process beyond their internal management initiatives. Moreover, the ambition of MOPAN assessments in practice is to adapt the framework and approach to the context and needs of each MO. MOPAN 3.0 and 3.1 began to include new standards that MOs were only starting to implement. It was also assumed that the people engaged in a MOPAN assessment (assessment team, MOPAN analyst, MO focal point, ILs) have some latitude and opportunities to find how the assessment can be useful to an MO and/or to a specific country. The consequences are as follow: On the members’ side, MOPAN assessments were presumed to have the potential to pro-

94 The references supporting the claims made in this ToC have been removed for clarity in this summary. More about these claims is presented in the Relevance section p.67.