Original Research

Examining institutional factors influencing the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies at the Government Pensions Administration Agency

Sizwe S. T. Khanyile, Jayanathan Govender

Received: 30 May 2025; Accepted: 21 May 2026; Published: 07 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: The South African Public Service continues to experience ineffective implementation of policy monitoring and evaluation policies, which, by implication, are directly responsible for the slow pace of public service delivery.

Aim: This study examines the institutional relationships in the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies in the South African Public Service.

Setting: The study was conducted at the Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA) of the South African Public Service. It emanates from the notion that, despite monitoring and evaluation policies, underlying institutional tensions persist between policy and practice.

Methods: The study utilised qualitative methods. The study collected data through electronic interviews. The study utilised thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data.

Results: The findings demonstrated that weak working relationships within the government departments inhibit the implementation of effective monitoring and evaluation policies. The findings also revealed the advantage of locating the monitoring and evaluation function in the Chief Executive Office. However, the function is prone to prioritising compliance reporting over evaluative evidence and is therefore unable to learn and improve. Finally, the acceptable level of understanding of the role of monitoring and evaluation within the government service delivery machine helps enhance cooperation within the GPAA.

Conclusion: The study revealed that while implementing monitoring and evaluation policies in the public service poses challenges, there is an acceptable level of understanding of the significance of monitoring and evaluation in public service delivery.

Contribution: This study contributes to understanding the institutional challenges of implementing monitoring and evaluation policies and services in the South African public sector.

Keywords: public policy; institutional; monitoring; evaluation; implementation; service delivery.

Introduction

Problem statement

This article examines the institutional relationships involved in implementing monitoring and evaluation programs in the South African Public Service. In 2007, the Government of South Africa developed an overarching, comprehensive scheme, the Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System (GWM&ES). This monitoring and evaluation policy framework offers guidelines for the South African Public Service to improve institutional efficiency, compliance and accountability, ultimately enhancing service delivery. This study focuses on the institutional relationships of the Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA) in carrying out its monitoring and evaluation function. The GPAA administers pensions and benefits for South African public sector employees. It further ensures efficient, transparent service delivery through performance-monitoring mechanisms conducted by the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Unit. The GPAA houses (M&E) function in the Executive Office, presumably to assure independence and autonomy. This unit gathers performance data from business units, consolidates reports and verifies compliance with the GWM&ES.

The public sector has been struggling to translate public policies into actual implementation. As a result, monitoring and evaluation policies have had little impact on influencing service delivery. To confirm this assertion, Ngumbela (2022) points out that South Africa experienced around 237 (2018) and 218 (2019) service delivery protests because of inadequate public policy implementation. These demonstrations against service delivery did not spare the GPAA. According to Chirumbe (2018), a group of senior government pensioners demonstrated in Port Elizabeth, demanding money they allege the Government owes them after failing to get tangible feedback from the GPAA. Therefore, conflicts between policy and implementation, driven by inconsistent institutional relationships, impede the delivery of efficient public services.

Monitoring and evaluation are performance management tool that promotes accountability through knowledge generation and learning (Armstrong 2022; Kimaro, Fourie & Tshiyoyo 2018). Armstrong (2022) indicate that performance management tools are a dynamic process for improving performance and achieving better results by understanding and managing performance. Kimaro et al. (2018) further support the view, indicating that in South Africa, like in other countries, monitoring and evaluation is used as a public sector performance management tool; however, Schoeman and Chakwizira (2023) identified persistent gaps and cracks in National, Provincial and Local government structures, resulting in inadequate service delivery. These gaps have been widely noted across the administration, particularly in structural design and support systems, which have weakened project implementation and delivery (Schoeman & Chakwizira 2023). The institutional relationships are a contributing factor to inadequate public policy delivery; hence, the focus is on the political and/or administrative relationships responsible for implementing and monitoring evaluation policies (Kang’ethe 2024). Focusing on this variable will help establish whether the tensions in public policy delivery result from inadequate relationships within Institutional arrangements. The hermeneutics assertion allows for exploring the interpretation of the political/administrative understanding of responsibilities within the Institutional arrangements for the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies (Creswell & Creswell 2017).

Therefore, the purpose of the study is to provide insight into the institutional factors that affect the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies within the GPAA organisation. The study seeks to determine how interdepartmental relationships, the location of monitoring and evaluation, the role of monitoring and evaluation and the manner in which Management supports the implementation of the monitoring and evaluation function. As a result, the study will delve deeper into the institutional issues surrounding policy formation and policy implementation with the GPAA.

The assumption is that the effective implementation of public policies depends solely on the effective discharge of monitoring and evaluation functions by the structures involved in the implementation process. Therefore, understanding the institutional relationships and the roles and responsibilities of each constituent is essential to the successful implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies. Hence, the article investigates the Institutional relationship in the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies with specific reference to the following indicators:

• Interdepartmental relationships
• Location of the monitoring and evaluation function
• The role of monitoring and evaluation
• Management support

Theoretical framework

This article is premised on the politics-administration dichotomy, a theory developed by Woodrow Wilson in the late 1880s. The theory separates politics and administration in Government, arguing that elected officials, who are politicians, provide policy direction, while workers, who are administrators, execute policy. These interconnections between the political and administrative arms of Government create a hierarchical relationship between policymakers and policy implementers in the three sectors of Government: national, provincial and local. Policymaking is the responsibility of the political office in all domains, whereas policy execution is the responsibility of the administrative office. However, policymakers and policy implementers have different understandings and ways of implementing public policies. These misunderstandings are responsible for tensions among the structures in the public policy space. It may not be surprising that these tensions are orchestrated by the reporting obligations at both levels of public policy, which are undoubtedly contradictory. As a compliance measure, it is the responsibility of the political office holder to report on annual performance plans, which are eventually presented in Parliament. In contrast, the administration office is responsible for reporting on the performance of organisational activities. Therefore, the latter’s objective, the administrative office, is concerned with the outcomes, which are service quality. Still, the drive in the political office is concerned with the output. This schism in the relationship has exacerbated various problems between policy and implementation. To begin, the purpose of monitoring and evaluation in public service is to ensure the successful implementation of public policy and the delivery of services. However, insufficient relationships among different structures in the implementation of public policies lead to conflicts between policy and practice. The solution to this challenge is the introduction of the concept of complex adaptive systems, which broadly encompasses dynamic, connected agents and their subsequent behaviours. It emphasises the need for adaptive management techniques that incorporate feedback loops and ongoing learning to comprehend and address complex policy challenges (Williams & Brown 2018). The essay aims to provide the Institutional relationships necessary for a successful public policy implementation process. Sadly, this relies on feedback to learn and adjust to shifting policy circumstances, presumably achievable in a highly connected world.

Therefore, while the study’s analysis draws from the theoretical perspective, it focuses on the four key areas of monitoring and evaluation implementation:

• Interdepartmental relationships
• Location of the monitoring and evaluation function
• The role of monitoring and evaluation
• Management support

The theoretical framework is therefore adopted because of its relative ability to examine political-administrative tensions and its adaptive capacity to support the successful implementation of public policies. The integration of these theoretical perspectives not only offers a structural explanation but also provides an in-depth understanding of why public-sector monitoring and evaluation systems prioritise compliance over learning and improvement.

Literature review

Policy overview

Government-wide monitoring and evaluation system: The GWM&ES (2007) is a broad and all-encompassing framework developed by the South African Government. The South African Public Service can improve public service delivery by adhering to the criteria outlined in this monitoring and evaluation policy framework. Providing programme performance data, including demographic, social and economic data, along with an evaluation component, is the main goal of the GWM&ES (2007). These elements use policy frameworks to enable the performance monitoring and evaluation system. Programme performance data is managed in accordance with the policy frameworks and the Statistics South Africa Quality Assessment Framework. These policy frameworks promote improved service delivery, accountability for public services, and sound governance practices. The Presidency (2007) states that the GWM&ES sets the standards and guidelines for tracking and assessing the performance of the public sector. It also serves as a platform for collecting data to inform public policy decisions. Thus, managers and decision-makers are expected to use the framework to inform policy decisions. According to Lekoba (2017), the accounting officer in public, for example, a department or municipality, or Agency is required to establish and maintain a monitoring and evaluation system aligned with government framework. Government departments and other public entities must follow the framework’s provisions, which require all government institutions to establish and align their monitoring and evaluation functions with the GWM&E Framework to create a standardised system for reporting on the operations of government programmes.

Frontline monitoring and support programmes: The Frontline Monitoring and Support programmes are one of the monitoring and evaluation strategies developed by the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME):

‘The DPME has undergone a strategic re-organisation and streamlining of its programs in line with a dynamic service delivery landscape to improve efficiency and ability to deliver on its mandate.’ (p. 6)

claims the DPME (2018–2019:6) guidelines. Frontline monitoring systems’ focus has shifted to four major programs as part of a strategic paradigm shift: Executive Monitoring Support (izimbizo), Frontline Service Delivery Monitoring, Presidential Hotline and Citizen-Based Monitoring System. The purpose of all four programmes is to track and assess the level of service residents receive. These four programmes were redesigned to improve efficiency and enhance service delivery. The Government improves the likelihood of high-quality service delivery through these initiatives. These initiatives thus put people at the centre of the entire service delivery process. Programmes for Frontline Monitoring and Support thus concentrate on the mechanisms and procedures that enable information exchange between frontline authorities and service users. Therefore, it seems sensible to examine the institutional relationships involved in implementing Frontline Monitoring and Support initiatives as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation policies.

Conceptualising institutional relationship in the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies: The term ‘institutional arrangements’ in this study refers to the primary actors that are organised or structured, as well as their interactions regarding hierarchical authority and responsibilities in the implementation of GPAA’s monitoring and evaluation policies. The modus operandi, or how policy is enacted and carried out, and the standards of accountability are the main topics of this connection. Thus, the structural dimension is used to characterise this institutional relationship. The organisational and hierarchical links that manage reporting lines, operational duties, authority distribution and organisational support are all directly related to the structural elements. The explanation for this is:

• Interdepartmental coordination structures
• Positioning of the monitoring and evaluation function
• Oversight relationships between DPME and sector departments
• Hierarchical relationship and support.

Structural positioning is critical to the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies because it shapes power dynamics, which significantly impact policy outcomes. Policy outcomes in this sense are also dependent on the degree of independence of the monitoring and evaluation processes. Therefore, the top-down structural approach may compromise evaluation independence because of hierarchical considerations, whereas the bottom-up approach may foster feedback, learning and improvement because of its independence.

Empirical literature

Monitoring and evaluation are widely utilised tools for measuring performance. It outlines methods and techniques for improving accountability, institutional compliance and learning in public and service delivery. Recent developments have prompted public institutions to transition from traditional to results-based monitoring, which encourages an integrated monitoring system that prioritises outcomes, feedback and learning mechanisms, public engagement and adaptive governance (Kariuki & Reddy 2017; Wotela 2017).

The New Public Administration (NPM) reforms of the 1990s marked the development of Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation (RBM&E), which attempted to improve the public sector’s effectiveness, performance and accountability. It focuses on monitoring impacts, outcomes and outputs rather than the typical concentration on inputs and activities. The successful operationalisation of monitoring and evaluation requires management support, a monitoring and evaluation organisational culture, institutional capability and the independence of the M&E function (Masvaure & Fish 2022). In South Africa, RBM&E is integrated into the (GEM&ES) and National Evaluation Policy (NEP). These two documents aimed to establish performance monitoring in the public sector.

According to Poti (2022), the South African Public Service implemented GWM&ES to assess the performance of public institutions and identify deficiencies that impede the delivery of goods and services. The goal is to strengthen the public sector systems to enhance financial Management, reporting, programme execution, budgeting and planning (The Presidency 2009). Currently, the public sector is facing moderate to significant issues affecting the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies. Pertinent issues relate to the functional relationships within the structures used to implement public policies. According to Majola (2014), monitoring and evaluation implementation in South Africa is still in its early stages. Hence, there is a need to expand the coordination capacity to undertake monitoring and evaluation in public organisations.

The implementation of public policies is significantly dependent on interdepartmental relationships, as they are carried out through various structures that work together to achieve successful public policy delivery. Makona (2023), in his study on the role of Monitoring and Evaluation in South Africa’s state-owned enterprises’ performance management system, found that there is no uniformity or coordination in the public sector’s implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system, resulting in conflicts and duplication of work across government entities and stakeholders. In support of this view, Serode and Dighe (2019) found that low capacity, non-cooperation and a lack of coordination have all affected the efficacy of monitoring and evaluation. In other words, monitoring and evaluation are underused despite attempts to collect data.

The Institutional location of the monitoring and evaluation function determines the successful implementation of public policies. The DPME (Republic of South Africa 2012) indicates that central monitoring and evaluation units are effective when located in the office of the Director General, as this creates the perception that the Director General’s office is involved in managing the reporting function. The monitoring and evaluation system commands respect from all departmental business units. Adisa, Omatsola and Ejue (2024) concur and note that, in this arrangement, the positioning of the monitoring and evaluation unit enhances organisational control over program managers’ tasks. In contrast, Matsiliza (2019), in his study of monitoring and evaluation capacity, indicates that when monitoring and evaluation are centralised, the Institutional location of the monitoring and evaluation unit closely replicates a top-down approach, undermining the importance of feedback. The top-down approach implies that crucial stakeholders are absent from the planning and development of public policies, resulting in misalignment in the central coordination of monitoring and evaluation. Furthermore, Majola (2014) occasionally supports a top-down strategy, indicating that subordinates must follow their managers’ commands. Notwithstanding the possibility of using monitoring and evaluation to centralise authority, wherein project managers perceive it as a controlling tool over junior managers.

Political office bearers and administrators often have diverse views and understanding of the role of monitoring and evaluation. Bakkeli (2023) demonstrated a disconnect between reporting and performance in his study of frontline policy implementation. Political office bearers view service delivery as a means to advance political will (reporting), whereas frontline administrators view it as a means to deliver quality services (performance). In line with this assertion, Rumenya and Kisimbi (2020), citing Norris and McCrae (2013), found in their study of Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap that the political will required to drive long-term policymaking weakens over time. Politicians are seldom held accountable for the consequences of their policy decisions; if they fail, they are more likely to have moved on or out of office. As a result, they are too drawn to the potential of immediate results. Consequently, they focus on immediate results rather than on learning and improvement, which is typically the focus of administrators.

According to the DPME (Republic of South Africa 2007:4), the role of monitoring and Evaluation is to support the public policy implementation process, which includes planning, implementation, data collection tools, data analysis, interpretation of results, findings and recommendations to improve the Government’s performance, particularly in the provision of public services. In other words, it promotes government reporting systems while holding the Government accountable for its actions. Kondo (2023), in his paper on the Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for Local Government Authorities in Tanzania, concluded that monitoring and evaluation systems play an essential role in ensuring accountability among decision-makers and implementers. This contributes to effectiveness and efficiency and ensures the sustainability of project results, ensuring consistent access to public services. According to Gounou’s and Soussou (2023) research, Public Sector Monitoring Systems in Practice, monitoring serves as a means of reporting on the pledges to guarantee good governance. It is a strategic steering tool that helps inform decision-makers, as part of accountability and evaluation, in developing evidence.

Furthermore, Makona (2023) found that adopting a GWM&ES has been difficult because of misunderstandings about the role of monitoring and evaluation systems and the general lack of a monitoring and evaluation culture, which has led to reluctance to implement it. Evaluations focus on actions and outcomes while ignoring inputs, resulting in siloed assessments that yield feedback that is not results-oriented.

It is common for Management to be reluctant to endorse or publish studies that could negatively affect their performance or conflict with political intent. According to Martin (2009), central Management is purposefully unwilling to embrace evaluation outcomes that may compromise authority. Seasons (2003) agrees, revealing in his research on Monitoring and Evaluation in municipal planning that there is a tendency to accept assessments that reveal the inadequacy of political decisions. In support, the World Bank (2024) report posits that monitoring and evaluation are primarily undertaken to meet the minimum technical reporting and fiduciary obligations. It has neglected essential analysis of policy implementation to provide lessons for future deployment improvements. The findings of both Nalubega and Uwizeyimana (2019) and Tuffaha (2020) concur that monitoring and evaluation are essential for future performance and serve as a tool for learning and improvement. Even though neither author discusses compliance in detail, their focus on outcomes and desire to improve performance highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluation as a teaching tool.

Finally, the analysed research articles identify gaps and limitations in the functional links underlying public policy implementation. These limitations are pronounced in coordinating monitoring and evaluation functions within Institutional relationships in the public policy implementation process, in the location of monitoring and evaluation functions, and in managers’ unwillingness to support monitoring and evaluation outcomes equally. However, there is evidence of a thorough understanding of the importance of monitoring and evaluation in the public policy delivery process (Makona 2023; Matsiliza 2019; Martin 2009; Kondo 2023).

Research methods and design

Research design

This article is grounded on a hermeneutic approach and draws on a study that employed two research approaches. To be specific, this study employed a qualitative case study design grounded in the interpretive paradigm. This paradigm was appropriate because it examined institutional actors’ understandings and experiences in implementing monitoring and evaluation policies in the public service. An interpretative lens enables individuals to better comprehend their lived experiences, viewpoints and context (Ames, Glenton & Lewin 2019; Tracy 2019). Moreover, the approach was relevant for analysing the complex interactions among the institutional structures involved in the public service monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

Case selection

Consequently, the GPAA was selected as a case study because it is one of the Government Agencies that is affected by the public service monitoring and evaluation policy frameworks. In addition, the GPAA provides a relevant platform for analysing interdepartmental coordination, the centralisation of the monitoring and evaluation function, the role of monitoring and evaluation, and management support.

Unit of analysis

This sample comprised nine officials from the other GPAA, specifically, Monitoring and Evaluation practitioners. This selection was informed by participants’ direct involvement in information on the implementation of the monitoring and evaluation policies, performance reporting and daily activities in the GPAA (Creswell & Creswell 2017; Patton 2002).

Sampling strategy

Judgemental sampling was used to select key research participants (Table 1) involved in implementing monitoring and evaluation policies. Judgemental sampling, also called purposive sampling, enables the researcher to control elements included in the study (Ahmad & Wilkins 2025). Therefore, the participants were intentionally selected because they had relevant experience to provide insight into interactions within GPAA’s complex institutional processes.

Data collection methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via email with staff from the GPAA monitoring and evaluation unit. This approach was appropriate for its accessibility and relevance because it required less time than the traditional face-to-face interviews (Meho 2006).

Four key areas guided the development of the interview questionnaire to address the study objectives and ensure that the collected data served the research purpose (Braun & Clarke 2021):

• Interdepartmental relationships
• Location of the Monitoring and Evaluation function
• The role of Monitoring and Evaluation
• Management support

Data analysis

Data were analysed using interpretative content analysis (Krippendorff 2018), which was supported by thematic analysis. The researcher interactively analysed the data to generate codes, themes, subthemes, categories and patterns related to the phenomenon under investigation. Furthermore, thematic analysis was employed because it emphasises the identification, analysis and documentation of patterns (or parts) in qualitative data (Braun & Clarke 2021). The key themes include analysing interdepartmental coordination, the centralisation of the monitoring and evaluation function, the role of monitoring and evaluation and management support.

Trustworthy

The Monitoring and Evaluation personnel had a wide range of expertise and knowledge, as participants were involved in the daily implementation of the monitoring and evaluation policy. Therefore, it was presumed that the participants had the work experience and institutional memory needed to ensure the study’s validity. Thus, the study’s validity and reliability were ensured using several data sources and methodological triangulation. Grounded interpretations maintain confirmability in the empirical data from the interviews.

Limitations of the methodology

This case study is undertaken in the context of GPAA, making it a single case with a small sample size, which limits generalisability. However, the purpose was to investigate the insights and analyses of institutional relationships in the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policy frameworks in the public service.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Humanities & Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (No. HSS/1970/081D). In compliance with ethical guidelines, this study was authorised to conduct interviews at the GPAA. The participants were told about the research’s goals and given a written informed consent form to complete, which excluded information about data records to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. The brief also emphasised that participation was entirely voluntary. Therefore, participants could exit the interviews at any time (World Health Organization [WHO] 2021).

Results

Institutional arrangements

The relationship between the DPME and other Government departments is to assist in the planning, monitoring, and evaluation as stipulated in the guidelines, such as the GWM&ES. It also monitors and evaluates the implementation of and adherence to commitments made by the Government of the day to its citizenry. It assists other government departments in ensuring that members of the public receive quality services. The DPME should engage with other departments to lead, train and ensure they adhere to the monitoring and evaluation framework. However, engagement has yet to happen, especially at the Agency. The monitoring and evaluation exercise works hand in glove with the Strategy Unit to assist in and monitor the implementation of an organisation’s strategic goals and objectives. It monitors performance by providing reports and evidence on indicators and targets. The role of business units is to provide performance evidence to the monitoring and evaluation Unit. The monitoring and evaluation Unit collates data from other business units to capture the organisation’s overall performance. The business unit must submit quarterly monitoring and evaluation reports to the highest organisational committee before their presentation. Business units also offer quarterly performance information to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.

The location of the monitoring and evaluation unit

The DPME delegates monitoring and evaluation functions under the Director General’s or the Chief Operating Officer’s office. This function at the Chief Executive Office indicates that the Agency employs a top-down approach, meaning that policymaking resides at the top of Management and is then implemented at lower levels of the organisation. Since the Director General oversees the monitoring and evaluation function, bias and unfair reporting can arise if monitoring and evaluation results harm the Department. In contrast, the monitoring and evaluation unit within the central policymaking office ensures that reporting is recognised as a critical management responsibility.

The role of monitoring and evaluation

The role of the DPME is to lead the country by developing legislative and policy frameworks that guide planning and monitoring, as well as the evaluation of government programmes across departments. Its responsibility is to ensure the entire Government’s coordination of public policy implementation. The DPME develops policies, provides advice and assesses department performance. It also supports policies, regulations and guidelines for the Public Service’s planning, monitoring and Evaluation tasks to provide policy guidance for public policy delivery. The DPME is also responsible for evaluating the many government programmes aimed at enhancing service delivery, policy outcomes and societal impact. The monitoring and evaluation unit’s responsibility is to monitor and assess the business unit’s operational plans and actions to determine whether they fulfil the organisation’s strategic objectives. It evaluates the organisation’s process flow to improve organisational performance. It also guarantees that the DPME meets the agreed-upon goals at the beginning of each fiscal year by ensuring that the provided targets meet the requisite quality standards. It also provides strategic oversight of business operations. It also collects, analyses and reports the performance of the organisation’s programmes against the services provided under the service level agreement to Treasury as the primary.

The Management supports

The Management’s support is insufficient, and the monitoring and evaluation functions are prioritised unevenly across different sections. The GPAA top management prioritises annual performance plan reporting above monitoring and evaluation reporting. Comparatively, reporting on yearly performance plans is a compliance issue rather than a monitoring and evaluation report, which provides a framework for corrective action and better public policy delivery. Reporting for compliance purposes overlooks other reporting on data related to performance improvement. Strategic reporting that strongly focuses on statistics, for example, the number of monthly payments approved, will be prioritised, undermining reporting on service quality, for example, the level of client satisfaction about the services delivered, a crucial aspect of service delivery.

Discussion

Interdepartmental arrangements

The finding indicates weak collaboration between the DPME and GPAA. Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation is the custodian of the GWM&ES, but individual Departments are not obliged to report on sectoral monitoring and evaluation activities formally. As a result, monitoring and evaluation become fragmented and are not fully aligned with, or implemented in accordance with, the guidelines.

The finding resonates with Makona (2023), who observed that the public sector’s implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system lacks uniformity and coordination, leading to conflicts and duplication of work among government bodies and stakeholders. This assertion is supported by Serode and Dighe (2019), who found that insufficient capacity, non-compliance and a lack of coordination all affect the efficacy of monitoring and assessment. In other words, monitoring and evaluation are underutilised, notwithstanding data collection efforts.

The insight of this finding is critical because it points to a gap between the policy authority and the implementation process. Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation develops policies through GWM&ES, where it sets monitoring and evaluation guidelines and standards. It cannot ensure that its policies are directly enforced. Therefore, the GWM&E is primarily voluntary, other than an integrated and comprehensive M&E architecture.

The key interview informants stated that:

‘I should think it is hard to measure what is not documented. The CM&E has not established a working relationship with DPME; therefore, it is not possible to check how well the GPAA is doing about abiding by the DPME policies.’ (KI 2)

‘There should be some engagement with the departments regarding leading, training, and ensuring that other departments adhere to the M&E framework. Still, I have not seen such engagement, especially in my Department.’ (KI 7)

The analysis demonstrates that inadequate coordination and uniformity in interdepartmental working relationships. The GWM&E is a coordinated national system that provides policy guidelines to deliver efficient public service delivery. However, it operates as a fragmented, decentralised function that works in silos. This misalignment results in a system that diffuses accountability, undermines learning and improvement and weakens coordination.

Therefore, fragmented working relationships and collaborations impede the delivery of public policy. Thus, in line with the hypothesis, the finding suggests that poor working relationships within departments inhibit the implementation of effective monitoring and evaluation policies, thereby impeding public policy delivery.

The implication in the context of GPAA is that M&E implementation is largely internalised as an organisational reporting responsibility rather than a coordinated intergovernmental learning process. The case illustrates how policy custodianship at the national level does not automatically translate into functional collaboration at the GPAA level.

Location of Monitoring and Evaluation

The DPME recommends that the monitoring and evaluation function reside in the Director General’s office to ensure that reporting is considered an essential management task. The Institutional design is intended to strengthen accountability and reporting at the strategic level to improve decision-making. In GPAA, the monitoring and evaluation function is located in the Chief Executive’s Office, suggesting the Agency follows a top-down strategy, with orders issued from the top and disseminated to lower levels of the organisation.

The presentation of empirical evidence both supports and problematises this arrangement. In support, Adisa et al. (2024) argue that the placement of the monitoring and evaluation unit improves organisational control over program manager activities under this configuration. It therefore improves administrative discipline and coordinated reporting by aligning Departments’ strategic goals with business units’ objectives. However, Matsiliza (2019) argues that when monitoring and evaluation are centralised, the Institutional position of the monitoring and evaluation unit closely mirrors the top-down strategy, undermining the relevance of feedback. In this case, monitoring and evaluation encourage compliance and oversight functions rather than development and learning.

The interview data demonstrate the tensions between compliance and evaluative learning. The Key interview informants indicated that the monitoring and evaluation function resides in the highest office; as a result, it supports more compliance functions other than evaluative learning.

The key interview informants indicated:

‘The monitoring and evaluation function is located in the Chief Executive Office, which gives it centralised control of the reporting function of the organisation, although it tends to focus more on compliance monitoring.’ (KI 1)

‘I think only APP monitoring gets much support from the leadership, as it talks about Management performance. Evaluations and research are not areas of interest for Management. They only get interested when an instruction from above (e.g. GEPF) needs some research-related information.’ (KI 3)

These findings demonstrate that although monitoring and evaluation functions command authority and visibility in the CEO’s office, they also narrow the importance of learning and development. As a consequence, evaluation, which is responsible for learning and improvements, remains marginalised. The Agency aligns with the DPME policy position on the use of a top-down approach. It is also an administratively adequate and appropriate reporting method; however, it constrains the development potential of monitoring and evaluation. The centralised monitoring and evaluation system strengthens upward accountability, while also weakening feedback and organisational learning.

The centralisation of monitoring and evaluation improves vertical accountability but jeopardises horizontal learning. The proximity of the monitoring and evaluation function to executive authority simultaneously enhances reporting legitimacy while constraining evaluative independence.

The role of Monitoring and Evaluation

The finding shows that GPAA officials have a clear understanding of the role of the monitoring and evaluation function. Key informant interviews indicated that the DPME’s responsibility is to develop policies that enable, influence, and promote effective government programme planning, monitoring and evaluation to improve public service delivery. This is in line with GWM&E policy position, which posits that the role of monitoring and evaluation is to support the public policy implementation process, which includes planning, implementation, data collection tools, data analysis, interpretation of results, findings and recommendations to improve the Government’s performance, particularly in the provision of public services (Republic of South Africa 2007:4). The results demonstrate that the monitoring and evaluation function is not only a reporting instrument but also a strategic tool intended to strengthen and improve institutional performance.

In finding resonates with Kondo (2023) and Gounou and Soussou (2023), who argue that monitoring and evaluation systems serve as a reporting mechanism and a strategic steering tool that assist decision-makers with accountability and evaluation for evidence production. Furthermore, it enhances effectiveness and efficiency, as well as feedback and learning, to improve public service delivery.

The key interview informants mentioned that:

‘It is a DPME that is responsible for government-wide monitoring, Evaluation, and planning. They are responsible for leading the country by developing legislation and policy frameworks to guide the planning and M&E of government programs across the country and to ensure coordinated efforts by the whole Government.’ (KI 5)

‘DPME plays an oversight role on the performance of government departments in line with the national development plan, and the monitoring of the SDG indicators targets to ensure that the country is on the right track in reaching these goals.’ (KI 5)

‘DPME is responsible for government-wide monitoring and evaluation as well as planning. They are firstly responsible for leading the country by developing legislation and policy frameworks to guide the planning and M&E of government programs across the country and to ensure coordinated efforts by the whole of Government.’ (KI 9)

Therefore, the finding demonstrates that the Agency’s officials understand the Department’s role within the Government’s public service delivery. The GPAA aligns its monitoring and evaluation policies to standardise these processes, thereby improving government performance and public service delivery. Therefore, the finding demonstrates that the Agency’s officials understand the role of monitoring and evaluation. Indicating an acceptable level of importance of the monitoring and evaluation function, which helps improve implementation processes.

Relationship between the findings and the case study: the findings demonstrate an acceptable level of understanding of the role of M&E in GPAA, with a focus on performance improvement and supporting planning and service delivery outcomes. The case illustrates the conceptual recognition of M&E’s developmental role and the operational realities of compliance reporting.

Management support

The findings reveal differential support for monitoring and evaluation in favour of compliance reporting (outputs), with less attention paid to evaluative evidence (outcomes).

The Key interview informants indicate a tendency for central Management to prioritise annual performance plan reporting over other monitoring and evaluation activities. Further evidence indicates that reporting on annual performance plans is a compliance exercise, whereas reporting on monitoring and evaluation activities is non-compliant and serves only as a learning and improvement tool.

The finding reflects a skewed interpretation of monitoring and evaluation, in which Management supports activities focused on organisational targets for compliance reporting rather than evaluative evidence that measures outcomes and impacts to improve service quality. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation are operationalised as a compliance mechanism rather than a strategic management tool to promote learning and improvement.

The key interview informants strongly support this finding, indicating that:

‘Only the Annual performance plan monitoring gets much support from the leadership, as it discusses their performance. Evaluations and research are not areas of management interest. They only get interested when an instruction from above (e.g. GEPF) needs research-related information.’ (KI 3)

‘Very limited. The GPAA management seems more familiar with and reliant on the APP’s monitoring wing. The other aspect of M&E is largely ignored, and not much support is rendered to the functions.’ (KI 8)

‘Well supported in performance monitoring; however, other sub-sections like evaluations and research do not get much support from management to publish or generally share their research studies, and some projects are still not getting a buy-in from the management to be evaluated.’ (KI 9)

This is supported by evidence from the World Bank (2024) report, which shows that monitoring and evaluation are primarily conducted to meet the bare minimum of technical reporting and fiduciary obligations mandated by legislation, while ignoring critical analysis of policy implementation to provide lessons for future deployment improvements. Lubega et al. (2019) and Tuffaha (2020) argue that monitoring and evaluation serve as critical foundations for learning and improvement, for future performance, and as tools for decision-making. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that GPAA prioritises compliance reporting over developmental functions. The literature review further indicates that Management supports the compliance function to protect the organisation’s institutional image. Martin (2009) posits that central Management is deliberately hesitant to accept evaluation results that might expose its weaknesses or jeopardise its position. Seasons (2003) concurs, indicating a propensity to embrace evaluations that show the insufficiency of political actions. These arguments are supported by the interview findings, which confirm that GPAA Management prioritises compliance reporting over developmental functions that reflect learning and improvement. This finding is supported by the theoretical position from which this study is grounded. The theory states that programmes and projects should be monitored and evaluated primarily on the impacts and outcomes they achieve rather than on the activities or outputs they produce.

The case-specific dynamic reinforces the political-administrative tensions identified in the theoretical framework. It incentivises compliance while evaluative learning remains secondary. The GPAA therefore exemplifies how managerial priorities shape the practical utilisation of monitoring and evaluation systems.

Recommendations

Strengthen institutional alignment

Government Pension Administration Agency and DPME should establish a formal bilateral engagement platform to initiate collaborations and improve relationships. The platform will discuss changes and amendments in the monitoring and evaluation policies. Regular engagements will also ensure continuous alignment of GWM&E policies to improve public policy delivery.

Formalise Monitoring and Evaluation governance structures

Establish and formally participate in the monitoring and evaluation forums to improve participation. This will improve reporting responsibilities, monitoring and evaluation obligations, and standard operating procedures.

Strengthen the role of monitoring and evaluation

Strengthen the understanding of the role of the monitoring and evaluation function in GPAA, with a focus on performance improvement, supporting planning and service delivery outcomes. In this way, GPAA management will understand the conceptual recognition of M&E’s developmental role and the operational realities of compliance reporting.

Strengthen feedback and learning loops

Government Pension Administration Agency should establish feedback forums to share information with the entire organisation. These forums will serve as a platform to share evaluation findings, lessons learned, and to improve information. It will also serve as a communication platform for all organisational monitoring and evaluation activities, providing institutional learning.

Promote a results-oriented culture

Government Pension Administration Agency should establish a culture and understanding of monitoring and evaluation as a strategic tool rather than a compliance mechanism. It should serve as a feedback, learning, and improvement mechanism to assist Managers and officials in improving performance. Evaluation findings should inform decision-making.

Summary of alternative monitoring and evaluation policy framework

The paper suggests a decentralised governance paradigm that prioritises learning and improvement over a more centralised, compliance-driven strategy that favours top-down approaches. The model proposes that business units coordinate implementation, monitoring and reporting. At the same time, the top structure provides technical direction, quality assurance, coordination and leadership in implementing public policy rather than relying on a top-down strategy. As a result, the alternative framework represents a move from a control-oriented, compliance-based approach to a learning-oriented, adaptive one. This strategy improves public service delivery while increasing accountability.

Conclusion

This article addresses the critical assumption that the institutional relationship and understanding of responsibilities at each level determine the successful implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies. The primary goal is to examine the institutional relationship in the implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies. The analysis is presented in four broad categories based on the research findings: interdepartmental relationships, centralisation of the monitoring and evaluation function, understanding the role of monitoring and evaluation and management support.

The study found weak interdepartmental relationships and collaboration between the DPME and GPAA. This results in fragmented monitoring and evaluation that is neither fully aligned with nor implemented in accordance with the GWM&E guidelines. The absence of this working relationship limits accountability, coordination and policy alignment.

The study also concludes that there is an acceptable level of understanding of the role of monitoring and evaluation in GPAA, with a focus on performance improvement and on supporting planning and service delivery outcomes. However, there are still challenges that affect the successful implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies.

These findings further revealed that although monitoring and evaluation functions command authority and visibility in the Chief Executive Officer’s office, they also narrow the importance of learning and development. As a consequence, evaluation, which is responsible for learning and improvements, remains marginalised.

Additionally, the study found that Management supports monitoring and evaluation activities to fulfil compliance reporting requirements and to provide evaluative evidence of service quality. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation are operationalised as a compliance mechanism rather than a strategic management tool to promote learning and improvements.

Finally, the findings support the politics-administration dichotomy theory, developed by Woodrow Wilson in the late 1880s. The theory separates politics and administration in Government, arguing that elected officials, who are politicians, provide policy direction, while workers, who are administrators, execute policy. The relationship between the political and administrative arms of Government creates a hierarchical structure for policymaking and policy implementation.

In conclusion, the study revealed that while there are challenges in implementing monitoring and evaluation policies in the GPAA, there is an acceptable understanding of the institutional relationships in the discharge of the monitoring and evaluation function in public service delivery. The implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies is not solely dependent on the availability of GWM&E policy frameworks but also on intergovernmental relationships, interdepartmental coordination, management support and learning and improvement.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Sizwe S. T. Khanyile doctoral thesis titled ‘Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation policies in the Government Pension Administration agency of South African Public service’, submitted to the School of Social Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal in 2024. The thesis was supervised by Jayanathan Govender. The thesis was reworked, revised, and adapted into a journal article for publication. The original thesis is available at: https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/d3875df2-a465-4f6b-8607-f0420c875834/content.

This article is based on a conference paper originally presented at Social Policy in Africa conference (SARCHISP), held in University of South Africa, City of Tshwane, South Africa, on 25 to 27 November 2019. The conference paper, titled ‘Implementation of monitoring and evaluation policies in the Government Pension Administration Agency of the South African public service’, was subsequently expanded and revised for this journal publication. This republication is done with permission from the conference organisers.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Sizwe S. T. Khanyile: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jayanathan Govender: Conceptualisation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because of reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author, Sizwe S. T. Khanyile, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References