Measuring policy and institutional coherence for migration and

development

Operationalising a dashboard of indicators

A KNOMAD initiative

Thematic Working Group 5Policy and Institutional Coherence

Why does policy coherence matter?

Policy and institutional coherence for migration and development

(PICMD) can:

Help reduce the negative effects of incoherence, e.g., spill

over effects, financial costs and large-scale inefficiencies

Assist in balancing policy trade-offs and enhance

collaboration, trust and synergies among stakeholders

Help clarify the interrelations between policies, migration and

development

Measuring coherence3 main challenges

Defining objectives

Monitoring policy

coherence

Assessing impacts

What are the benefits/costs of coherence/incoherence?

How to identify causal chains?

Is coherence measurable?

Can we compare countries?

Who defines the objectives?

What are the priorities?

How to limit conflicting objectives?

The dashboard of indicators Objectives

The dashboard of indicators for measuring policy and institutional

coherence for migration and development (PICMD) aims to:

Take stock of their existing policies and institutional

arrangements in different sectors related to migration and

development;

Consider what policies and institutions may be needed to

maximise the positive impact of migration and development.

Levels of measurementInputs, outputs and outcomes

The dashboard of indicators aims to measure policy and institutional coherence at

three different levels: inputs, outputs and outcomes, defined as:

INPUTS: processes that lead to government interventions, such as consultations,

statements of commitment and the allocation of financial resources.

OUTPUTS: government interventions, in particular policy and institutional changes.

These include the adjustment and establishment of policies, as well as the set-up

and modification of formal mechanisms such as inter-ministerial committees and

centralised oversight bodies.

OUTCOMES: short and medium-term effects on society of government outputs.

They differ from impacts, which refer to the intended and unintended long-term

effects of interventions.

A dashboard of indicators

InputsSending/ receiving countries

Outputs Outcomes

Consultations with stakeholders

  Public

commitment to harnessing the positive links between migration and development

  Budget size

and allocation 

Sending/ receiving

Formal mechanisms for inter-ministerial co-ordination

Increased number of policy decisions aimed at maximising the positive impact of migration on development

Receiving

Health services for migrantsIncreased access of all migrants to health care

Systems for recognition of foreign degrees and skills

Increased labour market opportunities for migrants; reduction of brain waste

Sending

Remittances comparison website

Lower remittance costs

Regulation framework for recruitment agencies

Lower costs of migrating

Investment incentives offered to diaspora members

Increased diaspora investment in countries of origin

Monitoring policy coherence

Dashboard operationalisationPractical details

Participating countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Jamaica,

Moldova, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland,

and Trinidad and Tobago

The Thematic Working Group’s research team works closely with a national

focal point in each participating country.

An international expert meeting was held in June 2015 to bring experts

and policy makers together to discuss the strength of the indicators.

Two national workshops (June-July), in the Netherlands and Cape Verde,

will serve as opportunities to discuss challenges related to operationalising

the dashboard at the country level.

The final results of the initiative will be presented at the 8th Global Forum

on Migration and Development in Istanbul in October 2015.

THANK YOU