This paper presents a comparative analysis of the ways in which the 5 Latin American countries have developed their M&E functions at the whole-of-government level. Collectively, the 5 countries have 8 national systems. A detailed analysis and taxonomy is provided, focusing on the main objectives and intended uses of each system, the way in which they were progressively developed over time, their legal frameworks, and the M&E system architecture -- such as roles and responsibilities, the extent of coordination, and reporting arrangements. Some evidence on the extent of utilization of the M&E information produced by each system is also presented.

Five of the eight systems focus only on performance monitoring information; the other three systems encompass both monitoring and evaluation. For performance information, the greatest differences between the 8 systems revolve around the level of leadership and control they assign to the system's central coordinating units -- such as the finance or planning ministry, or the president's office - vis-a-vis the role of the institutions, programs and activities whose performance is being assessed. But all 8 systems rely on the assessed institutions for the provision of the performance information that feed the systems. For the 3 systems which include evaluation, decisions about which activities to evaluate are made by the central coordinating unit or by some other central entity such as Congress or an inter-ministerial committee. The evaluations themselves are always commissioned to external consultants or institutions.

Chile's principal M&E system has been the most successful among the 5 countries in terms of utilization of the M&E information produced, and it has achieved this through budgetary and other institutional incentives.

Download paper in English and Spanish