• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
  • Social Development
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Impact of parliamentary and party assistance

Impact of parliamentary and party assistance

Helpdesk Report
  • Róisín Hinds
March 2013

Question

Please briefly summarise the number, type and headline findings from any impact evaluations completed in the last ten years on parliamentary and party assistance (programme specific or broader). Restrict evaluations to those that have used rigorous evaluation processes, summarise impact evidence and not lessons learned, and try to identify planned evaluations as well as existing evaluations.

Summary

Key findings: The impacts of parliamentary and party support have not received much analysis; there are a few rigorous evaluations, but significant evidence gaps remain. The existing evaluations are non-experimental short-term studies, which use case studies, interviews and literature reviews as their analysis methods. In general, they emphasise processes, outcomes and activities, rather than the specific impacts of parliamentary and party programmes.

The limitations have been attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, evaluations of socio-political processes are notoriously difficult to conduct, because democratic change is essentially ‘domestically driven’ and occurs over a long period of time. Secondly, there is a lack of consensus surrounding what is considered to be an impact. Thirdly, the design of party and parliamentary programmes can undermine impact evaluations. Programmes are often orientated around capacity building activities, which have a narrow set of indicators and inadequate monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

Commonly articulated impacts of parliamentary and party assistance programmes include:

  • improvements in the use of information technology and communications, for example through the creation of parliamentary websites or active use of intranet websites (e.g. Benin, Morocco, Azerbaijan);
  • an enhanced scrutinising role of parliamentary committees, evidenced in an increase in the number of questions submitted on bills (e.g. Niger, Benin);
  • improvement in the functioning of parliamentary committees (e.g. Pakistan, Senegal);
  • increase in the use of oversight procedures, such as formal questions (or interpellations) and commissions of inquiry (e.g. Niger).

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
Dominant party systems and development programming
Helpdesk Report
2016
Factors supporting the emergence of democracies
Helpdesk Report
2016
Political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan since the 2000s
Helpdesk Report
2016
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022