IJECM

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management

United Kingdom Vol. V, Issue 12, December 2017

Licensed under Creative Common Page 620

http://ijecm.co.uk/ ISSN 2348 0386

INFLUENCE OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION

BUDGET ON PERFORMANCE OF HORTICULTURE

PROJECTS IN NAKURU COUNTY, KENYA

Lily Chebet Murei

PhD Candidate, University of Nairobi, Kenya

imurey@gmail.com

Harriet Kidombo

Deputy Director, School of Open Distance and e-learning Campus

University of Nairobi, Kenya

harrietkidombo@yahoo.co.uk, [email protected]c.ke

Christopher Gakuu

Director, School of Open Distance and e-learning Campus

University of Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected].ke

Abstract

Project performance is dependent on various factors including specific itemized budget for

achieving set results. Allocation of resources for project implementation and monitoring is a

political one and considered an accountability issue. Although it is appreciated that budget

allocation is crucial in tracking performance, little is known as to what influence monitoring and

evaluation budget has on performance of projects. This study sought to examine the influence

of monitoring and evaluation budget on performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru County in

Kenya. The study was anchored in pragmatism and utilized correlation and cross-sectional

survey. Quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis were employed. A structured

questionnaire of Likert was the main tool for quantitative data. Key Informant Interviews and

Focus Group Discussions were used to triangulate findings. Arithmetic mean and standard

deviation were generated from the descriptive data. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 621

Coefficient(r) was computed. Findings showed that monitoring and evaluation budget was a

major contribution to high performance of horticulture as shown by a correlation coefficient

which was statistically significant. Monitoring and evaluation budget should be clearly delineated

within the overall project budget to give the monitoring and evaluation function the due

recognition it plays in contributing to high project performance.

Keywords: Monitoring, Evaluation, Budget, Performance, Projects

INTRODUCTION

Performance of many projects is to a large extent dependent on both financial and human

related factors. More so achievement of project results depends on availability and utilization of

such resources. Allocation of resources for monitoring and evaluation (M &E) in organizations is

an accountability issue. Implementation of an effective M & E requires a participatory approach

in budgetary planning, allocation and review (Khake&Worku, 2013). Equally important involving

those tasked with the M & E function in budgeting promotes ownership and improves delivery of

project results. Nevertheless, providing resources for M & E is a political process requiring the

support of top management (Mavhiki, Nyamwanza&Dhoro, 2013). Despite this challenge in

allocation of resources for monitoring and evaluation function, M & E is gaining traction and

seen as a tool for strategic learning especially in project management. As such project leaders

as well as project sponsors are setting aside financial resources for monitoring and evaluation.

Though this is the case, the process is top down, creating a scenario seen as an afterthought

by the management (Hastak, Gokhale & Safi, 2011).

Whereas the importance of itemized project budget is a necessity, the actual allocation

and prioritization of monitoring and evaluation (M & E) budget to gauge performance of projects

calls for more attention. Equally, and with adoption of results based M &E, tracking of project

finances has gained a higher importance, even for farmer organization. Despite budget related

performance based developments, projects are still characterized by poor performance of

projects (Nzekwe, Oladejo&Emoh, 2015). Hence concerns have emerged whether allocation of

M&E budget contributes to better project performance. Though there is increasing information

on effects of cost related project implementation challenges and project failure is seen to persist

(Naido, 2011; Ika, 2012; Okello &Mugambi, 2015).More so there appears to be limited empirical

evidence as to what extent M &E budget related factors influence performance of projects.

Although, performance of projects has been a concern in project implementation for many

years, assessment of project performance is based on traditional critical success factors using

Licensed under Creative Common Page 622

the triple criteria of time, budget and quality (Styne,2014). Despite these set standards gauging

performance, different projects are characterized by varying sizes and inherent complexities that

provide an opportunity to assess unique individual projects using other criteria (Nzekwe et al.,

2015). This has a bearing in assessing performance of projects since stakeholders interpret

performance differently. Some researchers however argue that these criterions are too limited

and therefore suggest alternatives, such as benefits for the stakeholder, project budgets and

project results (Mavhiki, Kwandayi&Nyaboke, 2013; Styne, 2014)

From empirical literature reviewed, the influence of cumulative project budgets has been

established in social development projects (Ifrah, Kerosi & Ondabu, 2015; Khake& Worku, 2013

& Ika, 2012). However, the influence of M & E budget on performance of horticulture projects

supported through a farmers’ federation has not been established. This study therefore sought

to assess the influence of M & E budget, on performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru

County.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Projects involve defined objectives that need to be achieved. Measures for performance of

projects according to Ika (2012) include time, budget, safety, quality and overall client

satisfaction. Despite this being the case, monitoring and evaluation in many of today’s

organizations is ad hoc, not aligned to strategy, and in most cases underfunded. These have

been found to be true regardless of sector, type or size of projects (Okello &Mugambi

2015;Khake & Worku, 2013). Often, underfunding has led to monitoring and evaluation efforts

being perceived as adding little value to organization decision makers (Kuwaviyah.2010).As

such monitoring and evaluation efforts are perceived to be not worth their cost. Nevertheless,

Mavhiki et al. (2013) argues that monitoring and evaluation as a tool for strategic learning is

gaining traction in project management especially at strategic level for managing projects

budgets. Importantly, M &E budget is considered as key indicator under results based

management.

Despite management consideration for adoption of results based M&E, organizations

implementing projects are doing it cautiously when it comes to resource allocation for M & E

function (Bayraktar et al.,2011).Though concerns about the value of monitoring and evaluation

continue, some organizations are increasing their investments in monitoring and evaluation as

value addition function. This experimentation of new approaches is aimed at improving

effectiveness and impact of M & E in achieving high level of project performance. In their study

of factors affecting municipal service delivery, Khake&Worku (2012) argues that providing

resources for implementation of M & E requires planning and consistent commitment by

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 623

management. Similarly, Guo &Neshkova (2013)study on citizen input on budgetary process

established that citizen participation is positively correlated with higher organizational

performance.

Where M& E is taken as performance accountability function for project managers the

responsibility involves allocation of resources and finding value for those resources especially

those allocated for monitoring and evaluation,(Mwangi, Nyang’wara&Kulet,2015). Besides

development of monitoring and evaluation plans, it would not be meaningful, effective and

efficient if the required resources needed to transform its achievement into concrete and

practical results are not available (Mavhiki et al., 2013). According to a report by IFAD (2013)

allocation of financial resources to monitoring and evaluation involves budgetary planning,

management and control of the same resources to achieve desired results. More so involving

those tasked with M & E function in the budgeting process increases the chances of ownership

(Ifrah,Kerosi & Ondabu, 2015). Equally important, when M & E staff or focal points are part of

the budgeting process and understands the investment put into M & E, they are likely to work

towards ensuring that M & E system is effective. Though, this is desirable, many organization

budgeting and planning process is top down (Ijeoma, 2010). The meaningfulness and usability

of monitoring and evaluation information has been limited because of its disconnection from

strategic and organizational level decision making including finances and budgetary decisions

(Kavuyah (2010). Moreover, monitoring and evaluation budgets are a mystery; there is rarely a

dedicated organizational-level budget line item for monitoring, evaluation. Because of the limited

or no allocation of resources for monitoring and evaluation, there are few processes, systems,

and opportunities for learning from and about monitoring and evaluation. This limits the ability of

organization to make sense of project monitoring and evaluation information /findings and to

translate them into action and results including assessing how projects are performing (Agusti,

2012).

The decision to put in place monitoring and evaluation is political in nature, requiring top

management support and resource commitment where the project budgets provide a clear and

adequate for monitoring and evaluation activities. According to Kuwaviyah (2010) on relations

between budgeting and performance, specific budget for priority items such as tracking budgets

should be clearly delineated within the overall project budget. This will give the monitoring and

evaluation function the due recognition it plays in project management. According to Yuni&Siti

(2016) for successful implementation of budgets it is advisable to involve all human resources

as this will increase accountability. More so because each will be responsible for ensuring that

budgetary allocation under them are utilized well. This therefore calls for a more scientific

decision making of allocating resources for M & E. One way is to involve those tasked with M &

Licensed under Creative Common Page 624

E in budgeting process since they understand what is required to carry out a result based M &

E function that helps determine the cost of best performing projects as suggested by

(Kuwaviyah, 2010; Agusti,2012; Yuni& Siti, 2016).

This study was guided by Theory of budgeting by Hirst (1987) and Contingency Theory.

Theory of budgeting proposes that for organizations to perform better, an effective budgetary

control is necessary as this will guide in establishing a system of efficient control and manage

potential risks. As such budget becomes the foundation of reliable management process to

guide any performance process including projects related performance measurement.

Contingency Theory proposes that performance is a consequence of the fit between several

factors: such as structure, people, technology, strategy, finances, budgets and culture (Islam &

Hu, 2012). The Contingency Theory acknowledges that relationships that exist between any two

or more variables are influenced by other variables. In this study M & E Budget variables

namely budget allocation and budget review are contingent and influence project performance.

Overall, the two theories were preferred for this study because an understanding of

Theory of Budgeting and Contingency Theory provides an enhanced appreciation of how each

of the sub systems of an organization interconnects and interacts to achieve the set

performance goals. Within the project environment there are those mandated with project

development, allocation of M &E resources, selection and recruitment of M & E staff and

tracking project implementation and performance. Consequently, understanding projects from

contingency perspective help project leader’s knowhow to plan better, how to obtain and

allocate resource, as well as manage information generated from project implementation for

decision making.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed mixed approach to carry out cross sectional, correlation and descriptive

survey. The choice of mixed approach allowed for both descriptive and inferential methods in

data collection, analysis and interpretation. The target population for this study was farmers

groups implementing various projects supported by Kenya National Farmers Federation

(KENAFF) in Nakuru County. Out of 45 groups, 28 purely implemented horticulture projects

hence were purposively selected for the study. Focus on the 28groups implementing projects

was preferred because they were spread across 10 sub Counties out of a total of 12 sub

Counties in Nakuru County hence had greater representation.

Sampling frame for groups implementing horticulture was the project register while the

sampling frame for individual respondents from the specific groups was the membership register

indicating the designation of each individual member. Out of a total of 28 groups, 15 projects

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 625

were clustered per the sub counties and wards. Proportionate sampling was used to get groups

per cluster represented by Sub County as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Sample Size Determination

Name of Cluster

No of Groups

Sampled Groups

Kuresoi North

Molo

Nakuru Town East

Bahati

Nakuru Town West

Njoro

Total

Respondents were drawn from the sampled groups and at KENAFF secretariat including staff

and management. As such respondents included group leaders who comprised the chairperson,

vice chairperson, secretary, vice secretary treasurer and four other committee members

representing special interest. Focus on group leaders was because they have been trained by

KENAFF in project management including monitoring and evaluation of projects. The second

category of respondents was KENAFF staff supporting implementation of horticulture projects in

Nakuru. While the third category included KENAFF top leadership that oversee the overall

implementation of projects by the groups.

For individual respondents, purposive sampling was used to draw respondents from

each of the sampled 15 farmer groups. The respondents from the groups were purposively

selected according to their designation in the group, out of which five had to be elected officials

comprising chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, vice secretary, and treasurer and at least

four member representatives of special interest groups. Each group has a leadership

management team of nine who are also farmers in their own capacity. Hence from each group

nine (9) respondents were drawn giving a total of 135 respondents from the 15 groups.

For triangulation purpose, respondents from KENAFF secretariat were sampled through

stratified sampling and purposively sampling respectively. KENAFF staffs supporting horticulture

projects were sampled at the different levels (stratum) including those at the secretariat and the

county level. At the secretariat level, stratified sampling was done per department to purposively

select managers and program officers supporting horticulture projects in Nakuru County. For the

management, board members were purposively selected since they sit in the project

management board and make decisions regarding project implementation, including allocation

Licensed under Creative Common Page 626

of resources, monitoring and evaluating. A summary of respondents from KENAFF is

summarized in the following Table 2.

Table 2: Sampling of Respondents

Category of respondents

Number of respondents

Group Respondents- nine respondents per group (15 * 9)

135

Top Management

 Board including CEO

 Regional Back stopper

KENAFF Secretariat Implementing Team

 Project coordinators

 M & E Project officers

 County Coordinator

 Project Managers

Total

154

The overall total respondents for this study was 154, comprising 135 drawn from the groups, 19

from KENAFF secretariat.

This being a mixed research the study used quantitative and qualitative methods for data

collection. A likert scale Questionnaire was the main tool for quantitative data was used for

farmers and KENAFF implementing team. Interview schedule was used for key informants

drawn from KENAFF top management. Focused group discussions were used to gather

information from farmers who did not participate in responding to the questionnaires.

To test construct validity, of the study operationalized the research variables and

ensured that translation reflected the true meaning of the constructs. Reliability of instruments

for this study was assured through methodological triangulation, which strengthened the study

by combining methods. To ensure internal consistency Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient

is determined. Creswell (2012) indicate that a reliable research instrument should have a

composite Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient of at least 0.7 for all items under the study.

Cronbach’s Alpha for Performance of horticulture projects was 0.844 while that of M &E budget

was 0.817 and was deemed adequate. Data analysis began by clean up, reduction and

describing data sets. Arithmetic mean and standard deviation were generated from the

descriptive data. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient(r) was computed.

Hypothesis was tested using correlation and regression analysis

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 627

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Data analysis began by clean up, reduction and describing data sets. Descriptive and inferential

statistics of the influence of M & E budget on performance of horticulture projects was done.

Arithmetic mean and standard deviation were generated from the descriptive data. Pearson’s

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient(r) was computed. Hypothesis was tested using

correlation and regression analysis.

Descriptive Analysis of Project Performance

Questionnaires were used as the main tool for data collection. Out of the 154, a total of 150

were filled which was a return rate of (97.4%) which was adequate for the study. A response

rate of 85% or more is desirable for social science research (Fan & Yan, 2010). The high

responses rate was attributed to administration of the questionnaires at sites that were

convenient to the respondents.

The indicators for performance of horticulture projects measured were; economic status

of farmers, technical performance of projects and farmers satisfaction of products and services.

Economic status was measured in terms of: source of income to farmers, improved

opportunities for income generation for farmers, connection of farmers to markets, differences in

lives of farmers, satisfactory of profits and creation of job opportunities to farmers. Technical

performance of projects was based on: engagement of project leaders to successful project

performance, contribution of skilled project leaders/managers to high project performance,

quality of produce being improved by M&E, improvement of overall project performance due to

provision of technical advisory. Farmers’ satisfaction of products and services was based on:

relevance of project products and services, positive impact of project products and services to

beneficiaries, satisfaction and dissatisfaction of project products and services by majority of the

farmers.

A look at the mean of the performance indicators revealed that respondents were of the

view that technical performance was an important aspect of performance of horticulture projects

in the County. This is according to the 5 point Likert scale indicator which produced a Mean of

3.801 and an SD of 0.849 for this category. This was followed by farmers’ satisfaction of

products and services which had a mean of 3.197 and an SD of 0.758, and finally economic

status of farmers with a mean of 3.103 and a standard deviation of 0.874. Table 3 presents the

views of respondents about the performance of horticulture projects supported in Nakuru

County

Licensed under Creative Common Page 628

Table 3: Performance of Horticulture Projects

Description

Mean

Economic status of farmers

3.103

0.874

Technical Performance of projects

3.801

0.849

farmers satisfaction of products and service

3.197

0.758

Composite

3.197

0.758

According to Table 4 the means M &E budget allocation and Budget Review was 2.633 and

2.779 respectively, while the composite mean is 2.706. The means are approximately3, which

falls under Neutral according to Likert scale rating indicating that the respondents may not be

involved in budget allocation and review processes. However, 43.3% of the respondents agreed

that budget allocation was important for project performance in the County though not all the

project members are involved in budget issues. Another 32.6% was of the view that budget

review is necessary in project performance assessment.

Table 4. Descriptive analysis of M &E Budget

Description

Mean

Budget Allocation

2.633

0.943

Budget Review

2.779

1.041

Composite

2.706

0.992

Similarly, responses from focused group discussions indicated that in most instances, only

group leaders comprising chairperson, secretary and treasurer are involved in budget allocation

as well as reviews. On the specific item of whether M &E budget was a priority, majority of the

respondents to a large extend agreed it is of priority despite them not being involved in these

processes. In another FGD, it was noted that at group level a specific M &E budget is planned

for the monthly review meetings. From those interviewed; one board member pointed out that:

“At the secretariat level, budget is allocated for all M & E functions covering costs for M &E staff

and for monitoring activities and evaluations. The M &E staff is assigned to specific groups

implementing projects”

Another board member noted that: ”Allocating M & E resources is considered a priority

like any other, KENAFF projects are guided by a results framework with indicators and targets

that guides implementation…. M &E staff is involved in budget allocation process as well as

reviews since they understand better what is required to carry out M & E activities”

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 629

On the same aspect of allocation of M &E budget another board member interviewed noted that:

” Initially we had a challenge of how to allocate M &E resources, this has improved since we

adopted a result base M &E system, where there is a budget line for each activity, however we

need to strengthen M &E at the group level so that more are involved… this way we will create a

sustainability path for the projects we support”.

Regression Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Study hypothesis aimed at establishing whether monitoring and evaluation budget had a

significant influence on performance of horticulture projects. Data analysis from Quantitative and

qualitative data revealed a linear relationship between M &E budget and performance of

horticulture projects. To assess the extent to which M &E budget predicted performance of

horticulture project a linear regression was conducted using a regression model of the form:

y= β

0 +

+ ε was estimated, where:

y = Performance of horticulture projects

= Constant

= Beta coefficient

= Monitoring and evaluation budget variable

ε = Error term

Results as indicated in Table 5 show that the correlation coefficient (r) of 0.890 indicates M&E

budget had a significant influence on performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru County. The

coefficient of determination (adjusted R-squared) of 0.694 suggested that M&E budget

explained 69.4% of performance of horticulture projects while 30.6% was explained by other

factors other than M&E budget. The Durbin-Watson Statistic of 1.012 showed absence of

autocorrelation as such indicating the model was statistically good for estimation.

Table 5. Regression Results of the Influence of M&E budget on Performance of Horticulture Projects

Model

Summaries

R-

Square

Adj. R-

Square

Durbin Watson

Statistic

Unstandardized

Coefficients B

Std.

Error

.890

.792

.694

1.012

(Constant)

11.063

6.528

M&E Budget

.621

.184

F (1,145) = 11.433, p=0.000<0.05

The F-ratio of 11.433 is statistically significant at 5% [p=0.000<0.05] implying M&E budget had a

significant influence on performance of horticulture projects supported in Nakuru County.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 630

DISCUSSIONS

These findings show that M &E budget has a significant influence and therefore facilitate the

achievement of project performance. Both farmers and staff were of the view that M &E budget

should be a priority like any other budget with a mean of 3; and that budget review should be

participatory to make it more meaningful. The study findings agree with the views of

Nyang’wara&Kulet (2015) who suggests that one of the key performance accountability for

project managers is the extent to which they allocate resources for monitoring and evaluation.

Besides, developing an M &E plan or system would not be meaningful and effective if the

required resources to transform it into concrete and practical results are not availed (Mavhiki et

al., 2013). Likewise, the study results support the views of Khake&Worku (2013) argue that

allocation of financial resources for monitoring and evaluation involves not the process of

allocation but also planning, management and control of the same resources to achieve the

desired results.

From descriptive analysis, outcome for budget review process indicated both staff and

farmers were neutral implying that they may not be participating in budget allocation review.

On the contrary, the study result disagrees with the reports by Okello &Mugambi (2015)

who observed that M &E in organizations is an ad hoc and underfunded. Though concerns have

been raised regarding the value for M & E, most organization including famer organizations like

KENAFF are increasing their investment in monitoring and evaluation. Further, M &E budget

need to be clearly delineated within the overall project budget to give the due recognition it

requires. The current study findings show that M &E is given priority in budgeting and has

contributed to great extent to performance of projects in Nakuru County.

This study established that budgeting process was top down, and only involved a few of

the group officials hence affirming findings by Ijeoma, (2010) that in many organizations

budgeting and planning process is top down. As such the meaningfulness and usability of

monitoring and evaluation information has been limited because of its disconnection from

strategy. Additionally, the study findings resonate with the observation of previous studies which

indicate that budgeting process can sometimes be a mystery only known to a few (Bamberger

et al 2012; Kuwaviyah, 2010;Mavhiki et al., 2013;Ifrah, Kerosi & Ondabu, 2015). However, study

finding corroborate with other observation that involving those tasked in M & E function in

budgeting process increases the chances of ownership as well as improved performance

(Khake&Worku, 2013: Mavhiki et al., 2013: Yuni& Siti, 2016). From the focused group

discussion, it was recommended that management need to embrace a participatory approach

on issues of budgeting. These study findings views are in line with other study observations

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 631

which pointed out that the decision of putting in place M &E system is a political requiring top

management support and resource commitment (IFAD, 2013; Nyang’wara&Kulet, 2015)

Overall the study revealed that there is a positive correlation between M &E budget and

Performance of horticulture projects. This finding supports agrees with Guo&Neshkova (2013)

conclusion that citizen input on budgetary process is positively correlated with higher

organizational performance. The study finding confirms that there is a relationship between M

&E Budget and performance of horticulture projects. M & E budget therefore positively

influences performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru County

CONCLUSION

The study investigated the influence of M &E budget on performance of horticulture projects in

Nakuru County. Indicators for the independent variable (M &E budget) and dependent variable

(performance of horticulture projects) were developed and included in the research instruments.

Descriptive analysis revealed that though respondents were not involved in budget allocation

and review M & E budget had an influence on projects performance of horticulture projects. It

can therefore be concluded that adopting a participatory budgeting process would improve

project performance. Inferential statistics indicated that M &E budget had a strong influence on

performance of horticulture projects. Overall conclusion deducted from the study is that M &E

budget had a statistically significance on performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru county.

Implications

Understanding the influence of monitoring and evaluation budget and performance of projects

will help organizations and government institutions plan better on how to improve project

performance and better allocation of resources. Hence, organizations implementing project

need to put M&E budget at the center of strategic decision making as this will improve

achievement of project performance goals. It was also established from project stakeholders

that though the agriculture function have been devolved from the national government to the 47

county governments, there is no clear strategy or policy on how M & E related function and

specifically M& E budget are factored into county integrated development plans. This study

therefore recommends that issues of project monitoring and evaluation be part of the county

integrated development plans. Budget is allocated for carrying out monitoring and evaluation.

Limitations of the Study

Some of the limitations encountered during research were during data collection. Despite the

limitations the study was carried out successfully. Location and geographic distribution of the

Licensed under Creative Common Page 632

groups covering some sub counties made it difficult to access. This was mitigated by hiring and

training research assistants to help collect data in each sub county. Some of the farmer

respondents did not understand the technical meaning of monitoring and evaluation. To address

this challenge translation was done and research assistant administered the questionnaire in

the language that the respondents understood. In some instances, individual respondents

differed in their views posing a challenge in making generalization. In this case cross-sectional

research design was used thus ensuring that respondents only participate once in the study.

Scope for Further Studies

Overall the study was scientifically designed and informed through careful literature and

theoretical review. Literature reviewed has identified varied factors that influence performance of

different projects. For instance, this study has interrogated the theoretical approaches of earlier

studies and tested them empirically using opinions of farmers, project staff and management. It

therefore provides an opportunity to use the same methodology to carry out studies in other

sectors. Methodologically the use of mixed method approach in data collection that included

questionnaire, key informant interview and focused group discussions provided a reach data

that informed conclusions and recommendation. This proved that mixed method provides value

addition in triangulation findings. The result of the study adds to the body of knowledge on M&E

budget and performance of projects.

REFERENCES

Agusti, R. (2012). Effect of Budgetary Participation of the Regional Government Agencies Performance

with Variable Moderated by Decentralization and Cultural Organization. Journal of Economics, 20(3), 1-

15.

Aruomoaghe, J.,&Agbo, S. (2013). Application of Variance Analysis for Performance Evaluation: A

Cost/Benefit Approach. Research J. Finance & Accounting, 4(13), 111-114.

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J.,& Mabry, L. (2012). Real world evaluation: Working under budget, time, data,

and political constraints (2nd ed.). New York: Sage Publications.

Bayraktar, M. E., Hastak, M., Gokhale, S., & Safi, B. (2011). Decision tool for selecting the optimal

techniques for cost and schedule reduction in capital projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 137(9), 645-655.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and

qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N: Prentice Hill

Guo, H.D. &Neshkova, M.I. (2013). Citizen Input in the Budget Process: When Does It Matter Most?

American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 331-346.

Hirst, M. (1987). The effects of setting budget goals and task uncertainty on performance: A theoretical

analysis. The Accounting Review, 62(4), 774-784.

IFAD, (2013). Strengthening institutions and organizations. Synthesis Report. Rome.

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom

Licensed under Creative Common Page 633

IfrahA,. M, KerosiE,.&OndabuI,. T,. (2015). Analysis of the Effectiveness of Budgetary Control

Techniques on Organizational Performance at DaraSalaam Bank Headquarters in Hargeisa Somaliland.

International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research(IJBMER), 6(6) ,327-340

Ika, L. A. (2012). Project management for development in Africa: why projects are failing and what can be

done about it. Project Management Journal, 43(4), 27-41.

Islam, J. & Hu, H. (2012). A review of literature on contingency theory in managerial accounting. African

Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5159-5164

Khake, S. &Worku, Z. (2013). Factors that affect municipal service delivery in Guateng and North-West

Provinces of South Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 5(1),

61–70.

Kuwaviyah, M. S. (2010). The Role of Organizational Commitment and Innovation Variables on Relations

between Budgeting and Performance: A Case Study in Magelang regency SKPD. Journal of Accounting

& Auditing, 7(1), 33-48

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967) Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.

Makanyeza, C. Kwandayi, H. P. &Nyaboke I. B. (2013). Strategies to improve service delivery in local

authorities. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 15(1), 1-11.

Mavhiki, S. Nyamwanza, T. &Dhoro, L. (2013). An evaluation of RBM implementation in the civil service

sector in Zimbabwe.European Journal of Business and Management, 5(32), 135-139.

Mwangi, J. K., Nyang’wara, B. M. & Ole Kulet, J. L. (2013). Factors affecting the effectiveness of

monitoring and evaluation of constituency development fund projects in Kenya: A Case of Laikipia

West Constituency. Journal of Economics and Finance (IOSR-JEF), 6(1), 74-87.

Naidoo, I. A. (2011). The role of monitoring and evaluation in promoting good governance in South Africa:

A case study of the department of social development (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Witwatersrand).

Nzekwe, J. Oladejo, E. &Emoh, F. (2015). Assessment of factors responsible for successful project

implementation in Anambra State, Nigeria.Civil and Environmental Research, 7(8), 2224-5790.

Okello, O. L. &Mugambi, F. (2015). Determinants of effective monitoring and evaluation system of public

health programs: A case study of school-based handwashing program in Kwale County, Kenya.

International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences. 3(3), 235-251.

YuniS,.& Siti, I. (2016).Participatory Budgeting Role in Improving the Performance of Managerial Head of

Department East Java. Review of European Studies, 8(4),148-157.

Steyn, G. M. (2014). Implementing Results-Based Management in the Public Sector of Developing

Countries: What Should be Considered? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 245-257.