Public-Private Dialogue
DFID | WB | IFC | OECD
Part 1 : Evaluation of Organizational P
2 or 3 indicators are derived for each of the 12 elements of the Charter; with one or more indices defin
in the calculation of each indicator.
SUMMARY TABLE
Mandate and institutional alignment
Structure and participation
Champion(s) and leadership
Facilitation and management
Outputs
Outreach and communication
Monitoring and evaluation
Sub-national
Sector specific
Relevance to FDI
Post-conflict/disaster/crisis
Development Partners
PPD SCORE
Indicator
Operational Process Indicators
Number
Mandate and Institutional alignment:
Existence of mission statement and capacity of
participants to explain this mission statement.
1
Desk study Interviews
(minimum of 5 interviews with stakeholders)
Degree of anchorage of the partnership into existing
2 public institutions as per its mandate.
Desk study Interviews
Institutional readiness to implement PPD
3
recommendations
Structure and Participation
Existence of rules and regulations in the partnership,
4 including formal mechanisms in place to balance power.
Desk study Interviews
Degree of participatory decision making.
5
Desk study Interviews
Champions and Leadership
The presence and clear involvement of champions who
6 are recognized as such by stakeholders
Interviews
Continuity of involvement of champions in dialogue or in
7 partnership
Interviews
Facilitation and Management
Quality of facilitation of the PPD
8
Desk Study Interviews
Quality of facilitation of the PPD
8
Desk Study Interviews
Quality of ppd logistics and management arrangements
9 (responsibilities, tasks, structure, arrangements etc.)
Desk Study Interviews
Outputs
10 Hard output
11 Soft output
Impact Output :Degree to which dialogue or partnership
12 has innovated or changed existing institutional structures.
Interviews with external stakeholders
Communication and Outreach
Quality and frequency of communication between
13 different stakeholder groups
Observation of meetings ; Interviews
Amount and kind of outreach and communication
activities to civil society and media
14
Desk-study Interviews (internal and external
stakeholders)
Monitoring and Evaluation
15 Quality of internal monitoring tools used
Quality of reporting and documentation on activities of the
16
partnership
Degree to which monitoring results have resulted in
17
changes in planning and targets
18 Use of ex-post Assessment
Sub-national
Existence of local and regional structures or consultation
mechanisms for the dialogue or partnership
19
Desk study Interviews; Interviews with beneficiaries and
target groups at the local level
Existence of activities of the PPD at other levels (local,
regional or national) through ad hoc activities or
20 dedicated programs or working groups
Interviews (internal and external stakeholders)
Sector Specific
Degree to which the dialogue or partnership addresses
21 specific problems of participants
Desk study Interviews
Capacity of the dialogue or partnership to generate
22 concrete solutions to specific problems of participants
Desk study Interviews
Relevance to FDI
Usage of the PPD to promote cross border investment
policy reforms
23
Appropriate inclusion of foreign investors voice in the
24
PPD
Post-conflict/disaster and crisis mitigation/management
Capacity to put crisis on the agenda of the dialogue or
25 partnership and resolve them
Desk study ; Interviews (participants in the PPD)
Contribution made by the dialogue or partnership to crisis
26 resolution and peace building in its external environment.
Desk study ; Interviews (external stakeholders)
Development Partners
27 Degree of dependence of the PPD on financial support of
development partners (DPs)
Desk study
28 Degree of autonomy of the agenda of the PPD from
agendas of development partners
Desk study ; Interviews
29
Degree of which the DPs give the needed assistance to
the PPD facilitator
ialogue
luation of Organizational Process and Effectiveness
12 elements of the Charter; with one or more indices defined -each scores from 0 to 10 - to be combined
Evaluation Wheel
Weight
Score (over 10)
0.00 1 Development Partners
0.00 1
0.00 1 Post-conflict/disaster/crisis
0.00 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
Relevance to FDI
0.00 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
0.00 1 Sector specific
0.00 1
0.00 1
-
Average Average
Indices
Scoring for Scoring for
Indice measurement Scoring on 0 each
each
to 10 scale Charter
indicator
Element
0.0
Non-existence=0;existence ( in coherent
0
written document)=10.
Percentage respondents who are able to 0
recite the substance of the mission 0
statement (none=0, all=10).
Percent of participants with decision making
power in their home institutions (none=0; 0
all=10).
0
Mandate formally accepted and signed by
0
relevant public institutions (none=0, all=10).
Existence of a dedicated public institution in
charge of following up on the
0 0
implementation of the PPD’s
recommendations (none=0, yes =10)
0.0
Non-existence of documents with rules and
regulations=0, Complete set of rules and 0
regulations=10.
Equal participation of each stakeholder 0
group(in number and level representatives):
0
unequal or stakeholder groups missing=0;
exactly equal=10).
Percent of decisions reached by consensus
or vote during partnership meetings(none=0, 0
all=10).
0
Active contribution of all different
stakeholder groups in developing proposals 0
(none=0, all=10).
0.0
Existence of at least one champion in each
of the participating stakeholder groups 0
(none=0, all=10).
Percent of respondents that identify the 0
same champion(s) (all mention different
0
champions=0,all mention the same
one(s)=10).
Turnover rate of champions. (high, staying
on only a few months=0 to low , continuous 0 0
presence=10)
0.0
Existence of Terms of Reference
for facilitators and other
members of the Secretariat? 0
(Nonexistent=0; coherent written
document=10)
% of reform proposals receiving significant
contribution from Secretariat staff (zero=0, 0
0
100%=10)
Existence of rigorous recruiting and training
programme for Secretariat members 0
(none=0, yes=10)
0
Percent of respondents who
indicate that facilitators perform 0
well (none=0, all=10)
Existence of standardized documents
addressing all PPD logistical aspects (0=
none, 5= some documents but some 0
aspects are missing, 10= all aspects
covered)
Existence of task descriptions for
0
manager(s), and – if there is more than one
0
manager – clear division of tasks (non-
existence=0, clear description/division=10).
Timely availability of project plans and
timelines for all stakeholders (no and not for 0
all=0 and yes for all=10)
0.0
Existence of evidence-based analytical
output: %of PPD recommendations that
include policy papers, position papers, 0
reviews or
assessments. (none =0, all = 10)
Volume of recommendation: Number and
kind of economic and/or reform proposals 0
0
(none=0, as planned =6, exceeding
planned=10)
PPD process outputs: number of working
group and forum meetings (none = 0, as 0
planned = 10)
% of respondents of stakeholders indicating
increase in trust, understanding and
0 0
cooperation between stakeholders; building
of social capital.(none=0, all=10)
% of respondents of external organizations
who indicate the PPD has had influence on
0
activities of their organizations. (none=0,
all=10)
Appreciation expressed by external 0
stakeholders on the performance of the
PPD (no knowledge at all/low 0
appreciation=0; detailed knowledge and
high appreciation=10)
0.0
Distribution of time between listening and
speaking of participants of different
0
stakeholder groups in meetings of the PPD
(extremely unequal=0 and very equal=10). 0
Number of misunderstandings or
disagreements in communication that are 0
clarified (none=0, all=10)
Frequency of updates provided about the
PPD (no updates provided= 0, updates
0
provided but in inconsistent format = 5,
regular and consistent updating = 10)
Diversity of tools used to reach key
audiences (none=0, one or two=5, at least 0 0
three=10)
Amount of (written, verbal, television)
external communication messages (none=0,
0
total amount (needs to be customized to
situation)=10
0.0
Application of tracking tools to keep abreast
of all stages of each reform proposal (none 0 0
= 0, on some issues = 5, regular and
Number and frequency of monitoring reports
0
(on a scale from 0 to 10)
0
% compliance of reporting with qualitative
targets set for monitoring (not at all=0, 0
entirely=10)
Existence of specific criteria (including cost-
benefit analysis) as basis for issue selection 0
(none=0, existence of specific
Existence of follow up process with decision
makers (none = 0, yes but ineffective or 0
0
irregular = 5, yes and effective = 10)
Percent of follow-up actions on
recommendations in monitoring reports (no
0
recommendations followed up=0, all
recommendations followed up=10)
%PPD recommendations that have ex-post
assessments carried out on reforms passed 0 0
thanks to the PPD (none=0, all=10)
0.0
Consultation of PPD (through formal
structures/channels) at further decentralized
0
geographical levels (no at all=0, many
channels and all relevant levels=10).
0
Percent of respondents at the level of local
target groups (indirect beneficiaries of the
0
PPD) who are satisfied with the
performance of the PPD (none=0, all=10)
Number of activities at other levels than the
dialogue and partnership itself (none=0, 0 0
many and at many different levels=10)
0.0
Number of (sub) sector -specific working
groups in the PPD (none=0, all relevant sub 0 0
sectors= 10)
Number of (sub) sector specific proposals
generated (none=10, at least one per year 0
for each (sub) sector or issue=10) 0
Quality of these proposals rated by the
0
evaluator(s) (on a scale from 0-10)
0.0
Number of proposed reforms that tackle
issues directly related to FDI (none=0, 0
all=10)
0
Number of proposed reforms that include
FDI-related rationale in the reform proposal 0
text (none=0, all=10)
Given the reform agenda, the proportion of
foreign investors or associations
representing foreign investors is a direct
0 0
impediment to the progress of the reform
agenda (=0), is somewhat adequate (=5), is
perfectly balanced (=10)
0.0
Existence of an internal communication
strategy to mitigate crisis (not existent=0, 0
existent (written and coherent) =10)
0
Percent of crisis that have been peacefully
resolved within the PPD according to
0
respondents. Average % of all respondents
(none=0, all=10)
Existence of an external communication
strategy to mitigate crisis in the direct
external environment of the PPD (not 0
existent=0, existent (written and coherent)
=10
0
Number of relevant crisis in the direct
context of the PPD positively influenced by
the PPD, according to external 0
stakeholders. (no influence at all=0, in all
crisis positive contribution noticeable=10)
0.0
Amount of financial support from DPs as a
percentage of the total costs of the dialogue
or partnership (total budget provided by 0 0
DPs=0, more than 50% of budget provided
by own resources=10)
Number of points on the agenda that were
promoted by DPs as a percentage of total
0 0
issues on the agenda. (all points promoted
by DPs=0, no points promoted by DPs=10
Amount and quality of training received by
the PPD Secretariat members 0 0
(insufficient=0, appropriate=10)
0
d Effectiveness
0 to 10 - to be combined
PPD Evaluation Wheel
Mandate and institutional
alignment
Development Partners Structure and participation
conflict/disaster/crisis Champion(s) and leadership
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Relevance to FDI 0.00 0.00 Facilitation and management
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Sector specific Outputs
Sub-national Outreach and communication
Monitoring and evaluation
www.publicprivatedialogue.org
Operational Guidelines for the
Charter of Good Practice in Using
Public-Private Dialogue
for Private Sector Development
Public-Private Dialogue
`
Part 2 : PPD Impact on the Reform Pro
NB: Following the different data collection methods, the evaluator needs to rate each step in terms of the level of influ
This level of influence can be indexed on a scale from 0 to 3. This would mean that for each given reform and given st
0 The PPD has no impact on this step.
1 This step benefited from input from the PPD
2 The role of the PPD was crucial in the accelerating this step.
3 The PPD was solely responsible for this step.
PPD Evaluation Wheel Score (over 3)
1. Diagnostic
REFORM 1: 0.0
REFORM 2: 0.0
REFORM 3: 0.0
REFORM 4: 0.0
0.0 -
1. Diagnostic
* PS is able to identify the issue and its
root causes
PS - Capacity
* PS is able to articulate issue and
arouse interest
PS - Confidence * Confidence to share - trust in fellow PS
* Channel exists to raise issue among
PS
PS - Access
* Mechanism exists for PS to achieve
consensus
* Gov has access to relevant data and
Gov- Capacity knowledge
* Resources are available
* Issue strongly affects the Government
Gov- Willingenss
* PS lobbying has taken place
Gov - Opportunity * Inputs from the PS are available
NB: Following the different data collection methods, the evaluator needs to ra
This level of influence can be indexed on a scale from 0 to 3. This would mean
0
1
2
3
REFORM 1:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 2:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 3:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 4:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 5:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 6:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 7:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 8:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 9:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
REFORM 10:
1. Diagnostic
PS Capacity 0
PS Confidence 0
PS Opportunity 0
Gov- Capacity 0
Gov- Willingenss 0
Gov - Opportunity 0
SUMMARY 0
alogue
act on the Reform Process
needs to rate each step in terms of the level of influence, which the PPD had on the step being measured.
would mean that for each given reform and given step the following scores are possible.
put from the PPD
ucial in the accelerating this step.
nsible for this step.
2. Solution Design 3. Advocacy and Handover to Public Sector
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
- -
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
* PS has capacity to research and
analyze * PS is capable of preparing, present
* PS is able to access necessary and advocate to Public Sector
expertise
* PS is confident to present and
support the issue * PS is confident to engage in
* PS does not feel threatened by discussions with government officials at
other PS and Government ministerial and cabinet levels
* Issue not to politically contentious
* PS has access to Governement to
* Access to concerted solution
comment, amend and initial draft laws
design with Government
* Gov has access to relevant
* Gov capacity to engage on substance
expertise
with the PS on the issues they forward
* Resources are available
* Necessary internal Gov conferral * Gov willingness to be accountable to
has taken place PS on the issues they forward
* Government has the opportunity
* Gov has mobilized the appropriate
to mobilize the administration to
institutional structure to respond to PS
address the technical specificities
on the issues they forwarded
of issues forwarded by PS
data collection methods, the evaluator needs to rate each step in terms of the level of influence, which the PPD had on the step b
be indexed on a scale from 0 to 3. This would mean that for each given reform and given step the following scores are possible.
The PPD has no impact on this step and pre-condition
The PPD contributed to this step and pre-condition
The PPD had a significant impact on this step and pre-condition
The PPD had a crticial impact on this step and pre-condition
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3. Advocacy and Handover to Public
2. Solution Design
Sector
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
had on the step being measured.
s are possible.
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
- -
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
* PS capacity to provide input to * PS capacity to monitor, measure and analyze the
legislative/executive process reform
* PS is confident to engage in discussions
with government officials at parliamentary * PS can access the reform without prejudice
level
* PS has opportunity and access to * Government capacity and will to enforce the reform
Government to modify draft laws (e.g. no entrenched interests overturn)
* Capacity and power to put the issue on
* Capacity to coordinate with other agencies
the agenda and convince other agencies,
* Budgets are made available
parliament and political parties
* Gov willing to risk political capital
* Lack of internal vested interests * Relevant Ministry (staff) has incentives to
* Alignment between ministries, parliament implement
and parties
* Government opportunity to disseminate new
* Sufficient coordination among
implementation procedures to PS
Government entities
* Government opportunity to monitor and evaluate
* Proposal is consistent with legal
the implementation
constitutional demands
of the level of influence, which the PPD had on the step being measured.
eform and given step the following scores are possible.
tion
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4. Legislative / Executive Process 5. Implementation, M&E, Follow-up
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
www.publicprivatedialogue.org
Operational Guidelines for the
Charter of Good Practice in Using
Public-Private Dialogue
for Private Sector Development