A Framework for Enhancing the Influence of Evaluation in the Implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism

Abstract

This study analyses the implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), as a governance evaluation framework mandated by Article 5(2) of the African Union (AU) Constitutive Act of 2000. It aimed at generating a framework for enhancing the APRM, and in turn positively influence public policy outcomes in AU member states. The study was in response to increasing calls for empirical field studies especially about African home-grown initiatives, to guide stakeholders on how evaluation inputs translate into activities and consequently policy outcomes. In contributing to the decolonising agenda, in policy evaluation knowledge, it argues that APRM, is a Made in Africa Evaluation (MAE), but adopts a Eurocentric rational and outcome oriented approach to evaluation. This mismatch, in light of the limited attention given to the implementation process of peer review, has resulted into concerns of emerging patterns of evaluation under-use, misuse and non-use or inaction. This trend may result into an evaluation crisis, affecting the sustainability of the APRM as a catalyst to the realisation of the AU Agenda 2063. Using a mechanism-based approach, this thesis aims at bridging the knowledge gap by empirically drawing on qualitative data collected from 35 purposively selected participants. Through interviews and a focus group discussion (FGD), it established the perceptions of APRM stakeholders, about the impact of the first and second-generation peer reviews (2005-2018) as well as the refugee policy framework as a reported best practice. The findings were analysed inductively using ATLAS.ti 08 qualitative software and they reveal that the APRM first National Plan of Action (NPoA) was among the 23 core studies that directly informed the formulation of Uganda’s initial National Development Plan (NDPI). Nevertheless, APRM influence is declining to show casing best practices, with increasing symbolic use but also mis-use of APRM recommendations. This is attributed to inadequate financial and technical capacity inputs, lack of a well-domesticated legal framework supporting APRM activities, stakeholders without a well-established culture of evaluations and a political context that allows selective use of evaluations in policies. In the proposed framework, the study recommends inclusive participation in evaluation input, activities aligned with government plans; institutionalising government wide reporting on NPoA implementation and establish a well-domesticated legal framework.