Navigating the Public Resources Governance System: A reflection on Strengthening System MEL
Navigating Public Resources Governance Systems:
Public resources and services are necessary for equitable and sustainable development around the world. However, the governance systems that shape how resources are raised and used are often stuck in a vicious cycle of ineffectiveness and exclusion due to power asymmetries, prevailing ideas and norms, and the complexities of reforms and implementation. How can actors understand, navigate and shift these public resource governance systems to achieve more equitable and sustainable public services? This was the challenge faced by the International Budget Partnership (IBP) in supporting government and civil society actors around the world. In 2016, IBP set up a Strategy and Learning Team (SALT) and initiated a period of experimentation and innovation in systems-aware Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) that ultimately led to programs that were better able to support local actors to understand, navigate and shift the public resources governance systems they were engaged in. This blog reflects one perspective on that journey between 2016 and 2024.
Innovating for Systems-Aware MEL:
IBP had a diversity of ongoing or upcoming programs and there was an immediate need to put in place an initial ‘good enough’ set of MEL tools and practices. SALT co-created bespoke MEL frameworks and practices for each team and program, with an eye to incorporating systems-aware practices and political economy analysis.
Systems-aware assessment and learning
Systems-aware MEL frameworks and practices were often challenging in the initial program cycle, as they did not fully align with linear program approaches and teams’ mental models about change. Evaluations or case studies that explored the broader systems that programs were supporting local actors to engage in frequently raised questions about the contribution, sustainability and meaningfulness of program outcomes, even when these met or exceeded the targets agreed upon with funders.
For example, a program focused on strengthening civil society was successfully implemented according to its log frame indicators. However, case studies assessing the program’s contribution in the governance systems of several countries revealed gaps and unrealistic assumptions in the underlying Theory of Change (ToC) for advancing transparent and equitable fiscal policies and processes. The program’s ToC was not based on a robust understanding of why the governance system for public resources and services is often unresponsive to the needs of citizens. Though sometimes challenging, learning moments for engaging with evidence and insights from systems-informed assessments and explorations enabled teams and partners to incrementally deepen their understanding of the systems they were engaging with and approaches for navigating and shifting these systems.Single, double and (occasionally) triple-loop learning questions to guide reflection and discussion often led to insights that shaped program approaches over time. For example, in several cases, reflection on a single-loop learning question – “Did we do things right” – generated relevant ideas for implementation adjustments and adaptations. It also set the stage for asking the double-loop learning question – “Did we do the right things?” – which allowed for deeper reflection on strategy and outcomes, including from a systems perspective. Sometimes these produced clear ‘aha’ moments about needed shifts in thinking and strategic approaches. In other cases, this was more gradual and iterative across multiple strategy, impact and learning spaces and moments.
Systems-aware Theories of Change and Action
SALT also promoted strategy development tools that incorporated a systems change lens. This included developing ToCs reflecting the actors and factors in the relevant context and system, including factors holding in place exclusion and unresponsiveness. Program strategies also included Theories of Action (ToA) articulating a proposed approach to shifting system dynamics. The process for developing ToCs and ToAs allowed for evidence and insights from MEL practices to be engaged with and incorporated. It also provided space for critical questions about what it takes to contribute meaningfully and sustainably to systemic change given the political economy. Ultimately, this shaped systems-oriented and politically aware programmatic approaches.
Where there was more space for a robust and participatory strategy process, this resulted in Theories of Change and Action that were shaped by systems and political economy analysis, leading to a significant evolution of IBP’s programmatic approaches. One example was the SPARK program that sought to address a lack of inclusion and accountability towards historically excluded groups in public service delivery. SPARK’s ToC was built around the need for the following systemic shifts:
- Mobilization of civic actors to enhance bargaining power
- Opening or deepening inclusive spaces for participation
- Strengthening the accountability ecosystem
- Addressing institutional bottlenecks to service delivery
SPARK’s ToA centered on connecting and supporting broad coalitions led by membership-based organizations and other civic groups representing marginalized groups to identify and address systemic challenges and leverage points for specific priority services. The ToA suggested that identifying specific bottlenecks and achieving early progress in addressing these would enable coalitions to expand to other relevant actors and leverage points in the system.
IBP’s Systems-Aware MEL Approach:
IBP’s journey to more systems-aware MEL evolved towards an increasingly consistent MEL approach for strategy, adaptation, impact and learning. This included strategy, adaptation, impact and learning tools and practices that would enable program teams and partners to understand, navigate, engage and ultimately shift the governance systems for public resources and services towards more equitable, responsive and accountable outcomes.
As discussed above, shaping and assessing program strategy required one set of impact and learning practices to enable teams and partners to understand the systems they were engaged with and why they were not inclusive of and responsive to historically marginalized groups, and articulate a more realistic and holistic approaches to navigating and shifting those systems. This involved processes for developing systems-aware and evidence-informed program ToCs and ToAs. Evaluative approaches were focused on understanding the contribution and outcomes of program efforts and stakeholders in the systems they were engaged in, and generally included case studies that were developed through systems-aware methodologies and informed by a strong political-economy lens. Finally, as noted above, the MEL approach prioritized moments and questions to enable double-loop learning on approaches, assumptions, and outcomes, to shape overall program strategic directions, including understanding whether and how program efforts were going beyond one-off government responses to more sustained and accountable responsiveness.
In parallel, IBP’s MEL framework incorporated practices to enable ongoing systems-aware adaptations. This included ongoing planning for how to engage and shift key actors and spaces in the relevant system, capturing changes through Outcome Harvesting, and regular spaces for Single-Loop Learning reflections. These informed ongoing adaptations as program stakeholders engaged and navigated the systems they were focused on.
Finally, given IBP’s close work with government and civic partners, there was a strong emphasis on participatory approaches both for data collection and reflection on strategic and adaptive evidence and insights. This enabled shared understanding and ownership of lessons, adaptations and systems change outcomes.
📝 Learning About Systems-Aware MEL in Practice:
As noted above, the journey to more systems-aware MEL practices in IBP’s programs, and across the organization, was not straightforward. It involved dialogue, co-creation, negotiation, and sometimes contestation. However, systems-aware MEL practices generated evidence and insights that enabled IBP to more effectively support local actors to understand, engage, navigate and shift the governance systems of public resources and services in their contexts. This contributed to more meaningful and sustainable systems changes, including public resources and services for historically marginalized groups. Ultimately, the evolving systems-aware understanding and programmatic approaches were reflected in an updated organizational strategy aimed at deepening support to collective actors working to shift public resources governance systems to be more inclusive, equitable, responsive and accountable.
