In many cases, the same evaluator adopted the same assignment pattern of verification items in multiple evaluations. Instead of setting verification items according to the situation of the target country or region, there was a tendency for item assignments to be determined based on the mindset of the evaluator (commissioned consultant) regardless of the target country. Although several of the Country Assistance Evaluations implemented sub-ratings, the method of sub-rating varies by evaluation, and the criteria for the sub-ratings are unclear.(1) Review of Recommendations and Lessons(2) Pattern Classification of Recommendations/(3) Useful Lessons for ODA PoliciesBackground, Objectives, and Scope of StudySummary of Study Results(4) Evaluation Framework and Rating ResultsChief EvaluatorConsultantStudy Target PeriodStudy Implementation PeriodLessonsThe recommendations and lessons contained in Country Assistance Evaluation Reports from FY2014 to FY2019 (122) were classified into five categories and then into 24 subcategories and compared in terms of the implementation period of the evaluation. Although the category comparison did not show any differences between the implementation periods (FY2003-2013 and FY2014-2019), the subcategory comparison revealed differences such as changes in recommendations relating to “strategies/priorities.” MOFA implements ODA evaluations mainly focused on the policy level every year in order to improve ODA management and ensure public accountability. Externally commissioned third-party evaluations are implemented for further transparency and objectivity. This study examines Country Assistance Evaluations implemented over the past 15 years from the perspective of applying their evaluation results to future ODA policymaking, with the objectives of (1) organizing repeatedly recommended items and recommendations common to certain regions or attributes such as small (in size) and/or island countries so that they can be compiled into useful lessons also applicable to other countries, and (2) obtaining proposals for evaluation methodologies better suited to Country Assistance Evaluations while keeping in mind the evaluation methodologies prescribed in the current ODA Evaluation Guidelines, as well as recommendations for a standard evaluation framework that can be used for all Country Assistance Evaluations.The reports on Country Assistance Evaluations implemented from FY2005 to FY2019 (56 reports) contained a total of 442 recommendations and lessons. Comparing the number of recommendations and lessons in five-year increments, the number of recommendations decreased starting in 2015, and the content of the recommendations indicated in the reports became more concise and easily understandable. Starting in FY2015, more and more evaluations extracted “Lessons Learned.” However, many of these lessons were rewordings of the recommendations, and information was not organized in line with the definition of “Lessons.”Based on the results of the analysis in (2), recommendations and lessons that were not limited to a specific country or region but rather applicable to other countries and regions were extracted into a compilation of lessons. In evaluations from FY2014 to FY2019, subcategories containing numerous recommendations Prof. HAYASHI KaoruFaculty of International Studies, Bunkyo UniversityFoundation for Advanced Studies on International DevelopmentFY2005 to FY2019October 2020 to March 2021and lessons were analyzed with a focus on four aspects, namely, (1) concrete recommendations/countermeasures, (2) factors and events that contributed to the recommendations, (3) objectives of recommendations/countermeasures, and (4) content of items “that could serve as a reference for other countries/regions.” From this analysis, seven themes that provided lessons were identified and compiled.Thirteen Country Assistance Evaluations that implemented ratings were analyzed in terms of the verification items, verification content, and derivation of ratings for each of the three evaluation criteria (Relevance of Policies, Effectiveness of Results, and Appropriateness of Processes). The results of the analysis revealed the following points. Of the five verification items indicated by the ODA Evaluation Guidelines for “Relevance of Policies,” three were set as verification items for all of the evaluations. However, in some of the evaluations, the remaining Review of Past ODA Evaluations (Country Assistance Evaluations) and Study of Country Assistance Evaluation Methodologies19Annual Report on Japanʼs ODA Evaluation 2021
元のページ ../index.html#20