we have to recognise that there are people in governement who benefit tremendously from lack of M&E systems and would not like any systems of accountability in place. The greatest resistance to RBM is from these people and worse, is if they are at the top echelons of government. I feel what we need more is shared experiences on how to break down such resistance and to create good will from them.
True , if leadership is not open minded and transparent the problem will continue. But commitment for cahnge is the answer. The bondage may be that strong and could take time but the only way out is to have a clear policy on how the information has to flow and strengthen institutional parts and relationships and establish transparent working system. To minimize resistance, I think changing individual champion's role is also recommended.
When I used to work in the private sector the same resistance to change was visible as soon as the discussion about evaluating results and more generally performance was started. The way we used to handle this discussion was indeed to show the "what's in it for me" and to present the whole process not only from the control side but more as a negotiation process where in front of accountability for results there had to be accountability for means and support to reach the results.
From my little experience in the public sector, the same principle applies but the complexity of political processes makes the accountability for means and support far less tangible in general and relatively to accountability for results. Besides, changing behavior from the point of view of M&E has to rely on many change drivers outside this process due to the complexity of the political and institutional system. Decentralization is and important one, as are for example strong control institutions, good HR policies and in general modernization of the public service for the sake of the citizen of course, but also and importantly for the sake of the civil servant.
I cannot conclude better from this point of view than the previous post: "[change] has to be led conciously , systematically and in a wholistic way", or, said in my words, the change approach has to take the form of strategy encompassing all government institutions and processes. This actually leads me to the question of how best to support this change and how best to allocate resources for that objective and I would like to offer 2 thoughts. First, considering the change "systematically and in a wholistic way", it seems to me reasonable to focus on a few drivers that may not be directed related to M&E first, depending on the context but with one of them often being improved HR policies in the administration. Second, the role of development partners in supporting this change is important and I believe this support should be far more visible in helping to focus on these few priority areas chosen by the country -evolving over time- than by imposing heavy even if theoretically sound M&E procedures in unprepared contexts as sometimes seen.