Government ownership, in terms on the financial commitment, cannot only be the signing of the agreement. The real commitment is in the actual disbursement of course. (in form and on time). However the focus shouldn’t be on the money in any case. (money = inputs)
More than Donors being holding governments to live up to their commitment, the key aspect is that Government ownership is also shown in the level of interest on having the project achievement its results. My point is that If government is REALLY interested in the project (e.g. its results = outputsàoutcome à impact), then THEY commit and provide the funding or co-funding, and THEY are also in the driver seat, hence ultimately they should even hold donors to live up to their commitments. (the other way around)
If this is not happening, then the real ownership is missing (only signing the finance agreement but not disbursing), and better to consider rebuilding that ownership, slowing down or re-scoping the project. Otherwise, closing eyes and continuing as if nothing happens, will likely end in one more non-effective project.
This is very linked to your last point on beneficiary ownership; which would be more an aspect for the proper implementation and monitoring of the project, that will at the end provoke or contribute to a transformational change (behavioral change) in the beneficiaries; which is the proof of their local-ownership, which also will ensure sustainability. At this point, Government ownership should then result in the replication and scale-up (where outcome and large scale impact is then achieved) which is the ultimate result of the project.
RE: What can we do to improve the quality of development projects?
Dear Paul,
Government ownership, in terms on the financial commitment, cannot only be the signing of the agreement. The real commitment is in the actual disbursement of course. (in form and on time). However the focus shouldn’t be on the money in any case. (money = inputs)
More than Donors being holding governments to live up to their commitment, the key aspect is that Government ownership is also shown in the level of interest on having the project achievement its results. My point is that If government is REALLY interested in the project (e.g. its results = outputsàoutcome à impact), then THEY commit and provide the funding or co-funding, and THEY are also in the driver seat, hence ultimately they should even hold donors to live up to their commitments. (the other way around)
If this is not happening, then the real ownership is missing (only signing the finance agreement but not disbursing), and better to consider rebuilding that ownership, slowing down or re-scoping the project. Otherwise, closing eyes and continuing as if nothing happens, will likely end in one more non-effective project.
This is very linked to your last point on beneficiary ownership; which would be more an aspect for the proper implementation and monitoring of the project, that will at the end provoke or contribute to a transformational change (behavioral change) in the beneficiaries; which is the proof of their local-ownership, which also will ensure sustainability. At this point, Government ownership should then result in the replication and scale-up (where outcome and large scale impact is then achieved) which is the ultimate result of the project.
With warm regards
Javier