نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• علی اکبر تاج مزینانی ¹
• یکتا آشوری ²

¹ دانشیار تعاون و رفاه اجتماعی دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

² دانشجوی دکتری رفاه اجتماعی دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

از آنجا که موفقیت و کارآمدی سیاست‌های اجتماعی و اقتصادی مشروط به توانمندی و قابلیت‌های دولت ها به شمار می‌رود، بهبود حکمرانی و راهبرد توانمندساختن دولت کلید اساسی توسعۀ پایدار، کاهش فقر و افزایش رفاه محسوب می‌شود. این پژوهش می‌کوشد با تمرکز بر رویکرد حکمرانی‌خوب که بر مولفه‌هایی چون اثربخشی، پاسخگویی و مشارکت تاکید دارد، به بررسی نظام‌های پایش‌و‌ارزیابی در راستای افزایش ظرفیت کارآمدی سیاست‌ها و نهادهای عمومی در میان برخی کشورهای منتخب بپردازد.بدین منظور با روش کیفی، به مطالعۀ تطبیقی اسناد مرتبط با نظام‌های پایش و ارزیابی در پنج کشور شیلی، کلمبیا، مکزیک، ویتنام و رواندا پرداخته شد و داده ها با روش تحلیل مضمونی تحلیل شدند. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد از آنجا که اولاً هیچ یک از نظام ها در فرایندی خطی توسعه نیافته اند و ثانیاً این نظام ها دربرگیرندۀ ماهیتی پیچیده و وابسته به ذاتی هستند، نمی‌توان مدل تحقق نهادینه‌سازی نظام در کشورهای موفق را به سایر کشورها توصیه کرد. از این رو عوامل پرتکرار زمینه‌ساز موفقیت این نظام ها در بین کشورهای منتخب در پنج تم اصلی خاستگاه، رسالت، چارچوب‌حقوقی، پیکربندی و کاربست استخراج گردید. جمع بندی آنکه راه‌اندازی تدریجی نظام ها، لزوم اراده و مطالبۀ دولتمردان، مشارکتی بودن در میان سطوح مختلف بازیگران و ذینفعان، پیوند ناگسستنی با بودجه ریزی، پشتیبانی سازمان‌های داده محور و آماری و تاثیر کاهنده بر روی میزان سرشمار فقر از جمله نکاتی است که در پایداری و موفقیت نظام‌های پایش و ارزیابی نقش ویژه‌ای ایفا می‌کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• نظام‌های پایش و ارزیابی
• حکمرانی خوب
• اثربخشی
• پاسخگویی
• مشارکت

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Study of Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation Systems as an Instrument for Achieving Good Governance

نویسندگان [English]

• Aliakbar Tajmazinani ¹
• Yekta Ashoori ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Cooperation and Social Welfare, Faculty of Social Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

² Ph.D. Student, Department of Social Welfare, Faculty of Social Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Problem Statement and Background
Since the success and effectiveness of social and economic policies depend on the capabilities and capacities of governments, improving governance and strategizing government effectiveness are crucial keys to sustainable development, poverty reduction, and increased welfare. The concept of good governance emerged at the end of the 1990s, emphasizing a facilitative government model focused on enhancing public administration and delivering efficient and effective public services as the cornerstone of development. This research aims to explore comparative monitoring and evaluation systems, focusing on the good governance approach that emphasizes efficiency, responsiveness, and participation. It seeks to investigate how these systems enhance the capacity of policies and public institutions in selected countries. Monitoring and evaluation systems encompass organizational structures, management processes, standards, strategies, programs, indicators, information systems, and accountability mechanisms, enabling organizations to effectively implement performance monitoring and evaluation. These systems serve as valuable tools for policymakers to provide detailed evidence of policy efficiency or inefficiency and its underlying reasons, thereby equipping policymakers with feedback mechanisms to support evidence-based decision-making.
Research Aim   
This research aims to explore the political and economic context, institutional structures, and processes of establishing strategic monitoring and evaluation systems in countries with experience in creating and institutionalizing such systems, and those which are similar to Iran in terms of their welfare system. By studying the experiences of each country, the goal is to identify the underlying factors contributing to the growth and success of institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation systems in the governance of these countries.
Methodology
Using a qualitative approach and a comparative method, this research analyzes documents related to monitoring and evaluation systems in five countries: Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Vietnam, and Rwanda, including their indicators and characteristics. The research utilizes published documents related to monitoring and evaluation systems in different countries. The focus of the document analysis in this research is on countries that share more similarities with Iran in terms of their welfare typology. The data were analyzed using content analysis method.
Findings
The findings of the research indicate that since none of the systems have developed in a linear process and these systems are inherently complex and context-dependent, it is not possible to recommend a model for institutionalizing these systems in successful countries to other countries. Therefore, common factors contributing to the success of these systems in selected countries were extracted in five main themes: origin context, mission, legal framework, configuration, and application.
Origin: the origin itself includes two sub-themes: 1- historical, political, and economic background, 2- turning points (turning points refer to specific events or key milestones that can play a prominent role in shaping the path of transformations). By reviewing the political background of countries that have a history of establishing and implementing monitoring and evaluation systems, it can be understood that one of the most frequent factors has been the regime change to democracy and thus the tendency to implement a series of reform actions after this change.  For example, the development root of monitoring and evaluation tools in Chile, Mexico, and Colombia was linked to the political transition of these countries to democracy. Additionally, issues related to political economy in countries such as Rwanda and Vietnam have shaped the formation of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Furthermore, the turning point in establishing the monitoring and evaluation system in Colombia was the approval of a new constitution in 1991. Also, the first impact assessment related to the Oportunidades/Progresa Program was introduced as one of the most influential assessments in the world development and as a successful model, it has become an important turning point for the development of the Mexican system.
Mission: Countries focused on several prominent goals such as improving resource allocation and efficient budgeting, performance management (of programs and organizations), policy effectiveness, transparency and accountability, reporting to donors, and poverty reduction when establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in their public administration processes.
Legal framework
The establishment of some of these systems was based on specific laws or detailed legal frameworks. Colombia is a good example of such systems. On the other hand, some monitoring and evaluation systems were implemented based on relatively flexible legal documents such as agreements, inter-institutional protocols, or mechanisms prescribed by annual budget laws, as seen in Chile and Mexico.
System configuration: This research focuses on government-based systems (essentially aimed at improving program effectiveness and resource allocation). Document review indicates that in three countries - Chile, Mexico, and Rwanda - government monitoring and evaluation systems are centralized under the auspices of budgetary organizations (the Ministry of Finance of these countries). This theme encompasses five sub-themes: approach to monitoring and evaluation, organizational structure, leadership, stakeholders, and tools.
Application: The experience of these countries shows that monitoring and evaluation help decision-making in one or two areas: firstly, decision-making regarding performance-based budgeting, improvement of resource allocation or government priorities for national or sectoral development plans; secondly, for managing the performance of programs, activities, and organizations; thirdly, for transparency, accountability, and social control.
To extract a pattern from the monitoring and evaluation systems in the studied countries, six of the most fundamental success factors of these systems are summarized and presented in this research:

The first point is that the implementation and establishment of systems should gradually and over time become ingrained within the government and governmental organizations. Initially, the cultural persuasion of the value of evaluation is more important than creating executive and operational mechanisms.
The second point is that the path of creating, growing, and developing these systems has not been easy without challenges, and during that, encountering numerous unavoidable obstacles and difficulties is inevitable. Therefore, a strong determination, strong motivation, and high goals of leaders and statesmen, as well as the demand of civil society and the people, play a significant and unparalleled role.
The third point is that the more diverse actors at different levels are involved in government monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the more legitimate the system becomes, and its results become more valuable, acceptable, and effective. In fact, the value of evaluation knowledge depends on the quality of engagement of actors.
The fourth point emphasizes that the effectiveness and sustainability of these systems depend on their ability to provide monitoring over the relationship between the allocated funds for each program and the results achieved from implementing that program through precise, comprehensive, and preventive performance indicators. Although this significantly depends on governments' approach to budgeting.
The fifth point is the existence of support organizations that continuously produce systematic data for monitoring and evaluation systems by providing social and economic statistical information for the system and organizations based on scientific and reputable methods. The presence of these organizations alongside the system leads to the creation of a unified national database of valuable social, economic, and archival statistical information on changes in data and statistics in the country.
Lastly, the sixth point emphasizes that if the findings of monitoring and evaluation systems create a field for governments to adopt evidence-based policymaking, provide effective public services, and allocate efficient resources, while promoting justice and social welfare, we will see a reduction in poverty rates and the population below the poverty line in countries. Because if we consider the fight against poverty as the most important political priority and ultimate goal of governments in policymaking, the presence of poverty in society is a sign of social policy failure and failure in achieving justice, and therefore reducing or increasing poverty can be considered as one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of government policies.

Therefore, considering the above six points, and also considering that in countries that are almost similar to the welfare regime of Iran and relied on monitoring and evaluation systems, firstly, the quality of governance indicators has improved, and secondly, the poverty headcount ratio in these countries has decreased, it can be concluded that establishing continuous and regular monitoring and evaluation systems is the key solution to overcoming policy inefficiency or failure, public budget wastage, and raising hope and social trust in the country.
Conclusion
The study concludes that strategic monitoring and evaluation systems are essential instruments for strengthening good governance and improving public sector performance. However, their effectiveness depends on context-specific institutional arrangements rather than the adoption of a universal model. Political commitment, sound legal frameworks, organizational coordination, and integration with planning and budgeting processes support successful systems.
The comparative analysis demonstrates that while countries differ in institutional design, effective M&E systems share common governance principles, including accountability, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous organizational learning. These findings provide practical insights for policymakers seeking to strengthen national governance systems and contribute to the comparative literature on monitoring and evaluation in public administration.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Monitoring and Evaluation System
• Good Governance
• Effectiveness
• Accountability
• and Participation