180 likes | 333 Vues
World Bank Engagement on Governance and Anticorruption: An Evaluation of the 2007 Strategy and Implementation Plan. Navin Girishankar CSO Forum-Launch Presentation September 22, 2011 http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/content/ieg/en/home/reports/gac.html. Outline of Presentation.
E N D
World Bank Engagement on Governance and Anticorruption: An Evaluation of the 2007 Strategy and Implementation Plan Navin Girishankar CSO Forum-Launch Presentation September 22, 2011 http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/content/ieg/en/home/reports/gac.html
Outline of Presentation • What is “GAC” (Governance and Anticorruption)? • The 2007 Strategy and Implementation Plan • What did IEG evaluate? • Objectives, framework, and approach • Is the World Bank addressing GAC concerns? • Contributions to good governance in countries • What difference is GAC Phase 1 making? • Design factors matter and why • What can the Bank do going forward? • Implications for development partners
1. What is “GAC”? • A core development objective • Long history of World Bank engagement • The 2007 Strategy • Implied “a change in the way the Bank does business” • Principles: GAC as “everybody’s business” • Pillars:GAC in countries, sectors, projects, global efforts • Phase 1 Implementation Plan, FY2008-10 • Aimed for the Bank to be “more systematic in addressing GAC issues” across countries, sectors, and projects • Resourced by incremental budget and donor funds • Linked to a number of corporate initiatives
2. What did IEG evaluate? • Objective: To enhance Bank support for developing effective and accountable states, by evaluating… • Relevance of strategy and IP objectives and design • Effectiveness in enhancing operational response to GAC • Early lessons in improving governance in countries • Framework: Inputs, Outputs, Intermediate Outcomes • GAC Responsiveness of Operations: Selectivity, Signaling, Institutional Strengthening, Smarter Project Design • Scope: Country Operational Focus • Before (FY04-07) and after (FY08-10) the strategy • Methods: Triangulation through Multiple Methods
3a. Is the Bank addressing GAC issues? • A story of continuity….. • Virtually all CASs continue to support GAC pillars, entry points • …and signs of progress post-GAC • 3-fold increase in countries with institutional strengthening plans • Increase in projects with political economy analysis (PEA), “fit” • Increased use of some country systems in Africa, low CPIA • …but important opportunities yet to be seized • Inst’l strengthening plans not matched by project-level solutions • PEA in economic reports not as systematic as in projects • Weakness in risk and results mgt, use of D-side in projects • Need for consistency of Bank responses to governance crises • Need to address perceived tension between GAC & lending
3c. Is the Bank contributing to good governance in countries? • Few if any country-wide improvements in governance • Targeted support worked better: Long-term commitments with short-term results, realistic entry points, and appropriate instruments • Public sector reform is a mainstay but needs sector focus • Public financial management: Improved assessment but need to prioritize service delivery priorities, focus on natural resource rents • Civil service pay: Attempts to find selectiveapproaches but need better instruments and engagement with sectors • Investment climate efforts work with balanced approach • Improving public services to facilitate private sector development • Managing risks of capture of multi-stakeholder fora • Demand for good governance work can build on experience • Local governance and CDD is tried and tested; transfers to CSOs rare
4a. What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ?Design matters and why • Strategy design issues • Needed to update public sector reform and institution building business • Needed to address perceived tension between lending vs. GAC goals • GAC too loosely defined to set priorities or define value-added • Implementation Plan focused on Bank capacities & risks • Needed to focus on countries • Results and risk frameworks too focused on the Bank • Selective support inconsistent with “systematic improvement”
4b. What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ?Phase 1 Roll-Out • Guidance focus on “GAC-in-projects” and ring-fencing • Emphasized transaction level fiduciary risks, not systems level risks • Reinforced controls based on instruments rather than risk profile • Support to teams needed frontline focus, broader coverage • Lower scores on relevance and utilization of toolkits, manuals, notes • Need to balance bread/depth, support sectors, clarify “innovative” • Incentive impact of incremental resources was muted • $119 m in incremental Bank budget and donor funds • Fragmentation, fungibility, concentration, and weak monitoring • Attempts to develop GAC cadres risk duplication, not affordable • Institutional set-up helped internal dialogue but… • More accountability for operational quality, institutional risks?
5. What can the Bank do going forward? • Shift from focus from…. • Building Bank capacities to enhancing country capacities • Avoiding risks to mitigating risks, promoting results
Evaluation Methods • Desk Reviews of GAC Responsiveness of Country Programs and Projects across Sectors pre- and post-GAC (App. C and D) • 50 countries, 200 operations, and 32 ESW/AAA outputs • Statistical Analysis (App. E) • Econometric Analysis of Desk Review Results (Appendix E) • Aid Selectivity and Cap Bldg by Bank and Other (Appendix E) • Analysis of GAC inputs including resources (App B) • Sectoral Reviews of Roads, Education, Acc’ty Institutions • Thematic Reviews of Inputs -- PEA and Resourcing (App. B) • Staff Survey (App. F) • Structured Interviews and Consultations (App. G) • Country Cases (6 countries by region, income level, CPIA)
Is the Bank Addressing GAC Issues? Participation, Transparency, Redress
What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ? Risk management intensity across instruments Marginal effects reported from an OLS regression.
What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ? Delivery of support • Internal comm. paid off • 63% of staff are familiar with strategy • Training workshops work better • Low scores on relevance of guidance/tools >> low usage • Higher marks for GAC-in-projects and from Country Office staff • But few staff received tangible support (in particular, $) • Beneficiaries of CGAC/Window $ said it helped undertake activities • Yet support not associated with systematic improvements
What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ? Resourcing of GAC implementation
What difference is GAC Phase 1 making ? CGAC/Window • 27 CGAC countries, then 18 Window 1 countries • CGAC and Window countries • Generally not more GAC responsive post-GAC • More likely to focus on institutional strengthening • But less likely to achieve domestic accountability goals • Projects in CGAC and Window countries • Not significantly different in smart design post-GAC • Less likely to support rules-based decision-making and accountability post-GAC • Continued to have more risk management measures relative to projects in other countries post-GAC