Partnership for growth in the Philippines : 2011 - 2016 : evaluation report
2019EnglishEvaluated task order title: Partnership for growth (PFG) | Project title: E3 analytics and evaluation Economic growth and developmentCODE: 492; Philippines El Salvador Ghana
Metadata
- Authors
- Ganiev, Bahodir | Morrison, Isaac
- Contract/Code
- AID-OAA-M-13-00017 | GS-23F-8012H
- Institution
- 3970 - Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI) 13891 USAID. Bur. for Economic Growth, Education and Environment. Ofc. of Policy
- Keywords
- Constraints | Development assistance | Economic development | Food security | Governance | Judicial reform | Partnerships | Rule of law DA30 Top/Economics/Economic administration/Economic development (619.0) | Top/Government and law/The state/Rule of law (155.0) | Top/Government and law/The state/Public administration/Foreign assistance/Development administration/Partnerships (135.0)
- ID
- PA00W687
- File size
- 678 KB
- Source
- Open PDF
This report presents the results of a final performance evaluation of the Partnership for Growth (PFG)
in the Philippines, a shared development framework promoting economic growth. The evaluation used
document review and interview data to answer three questions:
1. In what ways did the PFG approach ? as implemented in the Philippines ? differ from the
previous U.S. government (USG) approach to development in the Philippines, and how was that
difference reflected in:
a. Bilateral cooperation and communication between the USG and the Government of the
Philippines (GPH)?
b. Cooperation and communication between and within the USG agencies active under the
PFG framework?
2. How did the PFG approach influence the design, implementation, and development outcomes of
the USG and GPH projects in the PFG portfolio?
a. How useful was the PFG in strengthening GPH capacity?
3. How appropriate and useful was the constraints analysis for the overall PFG approach?
a. Were the constraints analysis and the selection of constraint themes for the PFG made
properly?
The evaluation concluded that PFG differed from previous USG development approaches in the
Philippines due to the jointly executed constraints analysis informing a bilateral development plan with
significant GPH buy-in and cooperation. Alignment with the GPH and establishment of bilateral oversight
institutions contributed to sustainable programmatic successes. PFG?s effect could have been broader if
supported by a larger portion of the USG development assistance budget, and the monitoring
framework was not put in place until later in the PFG process. These two factors should be corrected in
future initiatives of this type.