research-report-15-3eb2f5d8daffab5b.pdf

A 2014 SAIIA research report evaluating the first ten years of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It describes the APRM as a unique, African-led voluntary governance assessment system that fosters mutual accountability among heads of state. While noting successes in expanding democratic space and identifying governance deficiencies, the report highlights failures in acting on early warnings and a lack of systematic knowledge management. It recommends deeper institutionalization within national planning systems and a shift away from reliance on individual political champions.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), established in 2003 as part of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is a voluntary system where African states assess their own political, economic, and corporate governance. By the end of 2013, 33 of the 54 African Union states had acceded, with 17 completing their first review and starting the implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs).
• The APRM is distinguished from other peer review models, such as those of the OECD, by its scale and ambition. It is described as an African-owned and driven system where national leaders meet as equals to discuss governance and maintain mutual accountability.
• The mechanism has contributed to governance reforms through policy and legislative changes, the strengthening of institutions, and increased scrutiny of implementation. In certain instances, these APRM-branded changes have led to increases in development assistance and foreign direct investment.
• The APRM has expanded democratic space by providing a platform for non-state actors—including the private sector, media, and civil society—to engage in policy dialogue on issues such as human rights, the electoral system, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
• The Country Review Reports (CRRs) serve as credible diagnostic tools that codify governance knowledge and allow for cross-country comparisons on issues like corruption, land use, and aid effectiveness. However, the report notes that these documents often lack specific details on how to actually reduce aid dependence.
• Funding for the continental APRM process is primarily African-led, with over 60% of funding coming from African governments, though it is supplemented by partner funding.
• The APRM has identified several systemic development effectiveness issues across reviewed countries, including high aid dependence (which can undermine country ownership), over-reliance on raw material exports, large untaxed informal sectors, and a lack of public input in economic policy-making.
• The report highlights a failure in some cases to act on APRM warnings, citing examples where governments ignored reports on xenophobia in South Africa and ethnically-charged electoral disputes in Kenya, which preceded outbreaks of violence in 2008.
• A significant weakness identified is the lack of systematic documentation of lessons learned. Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) often do not share their research instruments, leading newer participants to 'reinvent the wheel'.
• To improve future effectiveness, the report recommends that the APRM be integrated into national planning systems rather than being housed in foreign affairs or justice departments, and that it move away from heavy dependence on the political will of individual 'champions'.

APA

South African Institute of International Affairs (n.d.). research-report-15-3eb2f5d8daffab5b.pdf. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Research-Report-15.pdf

Chicago

South African Institute of International Affairs. research-report-15-3eb2f5d8daffab5b.pdf. n.d. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Research-Report-15.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=South African Institute of International Affairs |title=research-report-15-3eb2f5d8daffab5b.pdf |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Research-Report-15.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{southafricaninstituteofinternationalaffairsndresearchreport153eb2f5d8daffab5bpdf, author = {{South African Institute of International Affairs}}, title = {{research-report-15-3eb2f5d8daffab5b.pdf}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Research-Report-15.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }