Search

This dissertation consists of three essays that study higher education effectiveness and budget decisions. In the first chapter, I evaluate whether instructional spending in colleges, the main input in the human capital production process, is effective in promoting student earnings after graduation. Using a nationally representative dataset, I find a positive elasticity between instructional spending and student earnings of around 2 percent which is robust to various specifications and potential confounding factors. The effects are mostly driven by private institutions and four-year institutions. The effects are slightly lower for well-established public institutions. Cost-benefit analysis reveals that a student has to work for over 40 years until her increased earnings can cover the cost of the spending, indicating the cost-ineffectiveness of increasing instructional spending from an investment perspective.In the second chapter, we analyze one driving factor for college budget decisions - the competition for good students. We construct a model to show that colleges choose their share of spending on educational inputs and on amenities to attract good students. Their optimal decision depends on their competitors' choices. Simulation results reveal that over the range where budget choices are commonly made, colleges respond positively to their competitors' decisions. In addition, when the competitive pressure from competitors weakens, such responsiveness also declines. Empirical evidence generally supports the predictions from the simulation exercise.In the third chapter, we propose a method that bounds the treatment effect for the general population of interest under randomized controlled trials. Our bounds depend on a set of mild assumptions that are different from existing methods in the literature. Hence, we view our method as an alternative for applied researchers to choose from. Applying our method to analyze the effectiveness of a first-year learning program on retention rates, our bounds suggest a possible negative population effect and restrict the possibility of a large positive population effect, despite the estimated positive effect for the experimental sample. We also show that assumptions required for other methods in the literature to be applicable are unlikely to hold in this context, highlighting the importance of the availability of our new method.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is an extremely complex, multidisciplinary and skill intensive endeavor. Government-wide M&E is even more so because it requires detailed knowledge across and within sectors, as well as of interactions among planning, budgeting, and implementation functions in the public sector. The situation is complicated even further when the machinery of government is decentralized, with powers and functions distributed across three spheres of government. This paper outlines the process of implementing a government-wide monitoring and evaluation (GWM&E) system in South Africa. The first section sketches the context that created the impetus for establishing such a system. This context is clearly shaping the evolution of the system and influencing its longer-term sustainability. The second section outlines the various stages of conceptualizing and implementing the GWM&E system, which is currently very much a 'work in progress.' The third section reviews international experiences for lessons learned, which may also be germane to the South African context, noting similarities and differences in approach. Some of the critical implementation factors relate to the role of political leadership and championing of M&E, incentives for promoting usage of M&E findings, dealing with information and data constraints, capacity building, "ownership" of the M&E system by line ministries and other agencies, and managing the challenges of change. The fourth section examines a range of challenges and difficulties encountered in South Africa. The final section reflects on lessons distilled from the South African experience to date.

During the past two decades Colombia has been developing and improving its National Results-Based Management and Evaluation System (SINERGIA). The development of this system has been a focal point in Colombia's state reform towards performance-based management, particularly at the central administration. After 15 years of progress, overcoming the effects of institutional, political, and fiscal obstacles, SINERGIA has achieved one of the highest levels of development and customization, and it is held up as an example of best practices by multilateral organizations, donor agencies, and other governments. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that Colombia adopted sought to promote a results focus on both planning and budgeting processes, simultaneously. However, during implementation the results-based planning model superseded the budgeting model, owing principally to the architecture of Colombia's central administration and to the institutional placement of SINERGIA within the Department of National Planning. Compared with similar experiences in other countries, the process by which SINERGIA advanced institutionalization is notable for the way it combined high-ranking, wide ranging, and formal mechanisms with the development of informal practices in key areas of the public sector. Many lessons for other countries are identified in this paper. Some of the key factors in Colombia's success are as follows: 1) the importance of having a central governmental department act as a champion supporter, and using an opportunistic approach to include the M&E system as a key pillar on public sector reform agendas; 2) the kind of regulatory and incentives framework on which the M&E system is based, and the sustained effort in promoting 'cultural' change and developing evaluation capacities; 3) the political role of the President in the system's institutionalization process; 4) the powerful part that technically defined methodologies and dissemination mechanisms have played in the system's institutionalization strategy; 5) the collaborative approach used to strengthen evaluation practices and to enhance the community of evaluators; and 6) the demand-driven approach for introducing M&E at the regional level.

The public expenditure and institutional assessment (PEIA) were motivated by a number of factors. First, both the Government of Iraq (GoI) and its international development partners have recognized the critical importance of sound management of Iraq's substantial public financial resources. Both parties support the reform and modernization of public financial management (PFM), as articulated in the International Compact for Iraq (ICI). Secondly, international experience demonstrates the importance of establishing a baseline against which progress in PFM over time can be measured. This implies the need for an assessment which provides the information necessary to measure the performance of a country's PFM system. Thirdly, the devastating circumstances in Iraq during the past 5 years have made the institutional arrangements for PFM the subject of considerable uncertainty. The PEIA can help to shape and prioritize the necessary development program. The report is organized in two main parts. Volume one contains a summary of the main issues to emerge from the public expenditure and financial accountability (PEFA) assessment and a discussion of a number of specific PFM issues of current importance to Iraq, including: capital investment budgeting (CIB), oil revenue management, the Iraq financial management information system (IFMIS), public accounting and accountability, and payroll management. Volume two contains a detailed technical analysis behind the PEFA assessment.

Colombia's National Results-Based Management and Evaluation System (SINERGIA) is one of Latin America's outstanding results-based monitoring and evaluation initiatives. With 15 years of progressive development, SINERGIA has endured the countries' institutional, political, and fiscal problems and has attained one of the highest levels of development and customization in Latin America. Based on its accomplishments it has been held up as an example by multilateral organizations, donor agencies, and other governments. This paper examines the experience of institutionalizing Colombia's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, from the perspective of a former SINERGIA manager: Manuel Fernando Castro, Director of Public Policy Evaluation, and Department of National Planning. This study is meant to complement previous studies by other authors with an insider's account, description, and analysis of the obstacles encountered and the results obtained. Likewise, it presents recommendations on how to ensure further institutionalization and identifies several lessons that might be of interest to professionals who are developing evaluation systems in other countries.