How can sector-wide approaches be better implemented? The shift in aid delivery from donor-led projects to supporting sector programmes in partner countries (Sector-Wide Approach, SWAp) has contributed to an increase in funding for social service delivery and better management capacity at the national level. However, the positive impact at the local level is as yet less evident. This chapter seeks to explain this ‘macro-micro gap’ and argues that a systematic effort is required for it to be bridged. It does not propose radically new approaches but promotes renewed attention on the original messages of SWAp policy.
SWAp policies emphasise the importance of (i) broad-based participation by public and private actors and (ii) linking national level reform to institutional changes and dynamics at lower levels. These twin objectives have not yet sufficiently materialised. There are several missing links in the current practice of SWAp implementation.
- Sector-wide often turns into ‘sector-narrow’ arrangements, which are perceived not as a multi-stakeholder process, but as a specific public expenditure programme funded by a group of donors.
- The objective that other local stakeholders be involved proves hard to meet.
- The current aid situation, despite good intentions, still emphasises accountability from government to donors, rather than to domestic stakeholders.
- In practice, SWAps have come to be perceived by many donors and partner governments not as a multi-stakeholder process, but as a specific public expenditure programme funded by (a select group of) donors.
Improving macro-micro linkages requires a systematic effort on the part of donors and their partners in central government. Rather than reverting to donor-driven interventions at local levels, the challenge is to help strengthen mechanisms within the partner country that ensure more effective micro-macro linkages. Donors can help strengthen macro-micro linkages in partner country policies’ and implementation through:(i) the policy dialogue; (ii) institutional analysis; (iii) joint monitoring of performance and results; (iv) the choice of aid modalities; (v) support for capacity development and (vi) the interaction with a wide range of stakeholders.
- Donors must resist the temptation of engaging in top-down planning and policy making together with their national counterparts. Instead, strengthening local government institutions should take precedence.
- Donors therefore need to improve their knowledge of National decentralisation policies, the administrative and legal frameworks, as well as realities at the grassroots level to engage effectively in the policy dialogue. This requires a thorough analysis of institutional realities at all levels, ideally through a participatory stocktaking process.
- In theory, SWAps can provide the missing link between sector reform and decentralisation. In reality, however, many SWAps have the tendency to reinforce the position of central line agencies in relation to other actors. The design and implementation of sector programmes should respect the legal mandate of local governments and ensure adequate funding and staffing to live up to these mandates.
- Many donors continue to finance non-state service providers parallel to the government’s sector programmes. They sometimes do this rather than try to reach a more pro-poor focus in government budgeting and service delivery. To help develop countervailing power in partner countries, support to CSOs that focus on advocacy and empowerment is essential.
- The intended shift from output to outcome indicators for monitoring progress has rarely occurred. Hence, policy making and policy dialogue processes are insufficiently evidence-based and weakly related to grassroots realities. Limited use is made of tracking mechanisms which provide information on access to and quality of services at local level. More use should also be made of monitoring by CSOs and CBOs. Such participatory monitoring can stimulate a process of local empowerment, by making people aware of their rights and holding service providers to account.
- Domestic accountability is primarily the responsibility of partner governments but donors can do much to stimulate public debate and access to information.
- If donors were to regard SWAps more as a process approach, with a strong integrated capacity building strategy, this would go a long way towards addressing existing constraints.
- Donors and line ministries should not lose sight of the broader capacity building needs at local level for general administration, financial management and accountability whilst strengthening local capacity for a single sector.
