The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX C RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BANK’S COUNTRY PROGRAMS implementation, outcomes of projects and operations, and outcomes of AAA on the effectiveness side. Responsiveness and Effectiveness by Region 5. Among the Bank’s regions, Africa has the lowest share of country programs rated above-the-line overall—less than half—while programs in Latin America and the Caribbean were rated best, with 80 percent rated moderately satisfactory or better (Table C.1). Two-thirds to three-fourths of country programs in the other four Regions were moderately satisfactory or better. The aggregate ratings for “responsiveness and effectiveness” are broadly similar to IEG’s ratings for country program outcomes in CASCR reviews. Overall ratings were similar for programs in both International Development Association (IDA)- and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)-eligible countries. Table C.1. Percentage of Country Programs Rated Moderately Satisfactory or Higher by Region Alignment Ownership Realism Flexibility Results framework Implementation Project outcome AAA Outcome Aggregate rating AFR (n=29) 97 38 34 50 14 48 55 55 45 52 EAP (n=7) 100 43 29 57 29 71 83 100 71 67 ECA (n=25) 92 40 40 77 48 64 64 88 76 71 LCR (n=20) 100 35 40 74 20 45 85 85 80 75 MNA (n=9) 100 22 0 71 44 56 89 67 67 44 SAR (n=6) 100 33 17 83 17 50 83 50 67 67 Overall 97 36 32 67 28 54 71 74 66 63 (n=96) Source: IEG reviews of CASCRs as of December 1, 2010 Note: For flexibility in Africa, n=24; Europe and Central Asia, n=22; Latin America and the Caribbean, n=19; the Middle East and North Africa, n=7; for project outcome in East Asia and the Pacific, n=6. The entire universe of evaluations was used in this analysis, but nonetheless there were few observations in several Regions. While the results remain valid, they may fluctuate substantially as new observations are added. 6. The low ratings for realism and ownership and high ratings for flexibility are striking among nearly all Regions, but in particular in Middle East and North Africa. There were three programs in which ratings for ownership or realism were unsatisfactory but flexibility was considered satisfactory. In Djibouti (FY06-08) and Yemen (FY06-09), this was in part due to rapid responses to emerging crises, such as elevated food prices and avian flu, while the underlying program continued to lack ownership and realism. In Egypt (FY02-04), the Bank changed its program to better align with changing government priorities. Alignment with National Priorities 7. The most basic assessment of responsiveness is the degree to which the program’s objectives are appropriate for the country’s development and consistent CAS Outcome 125
APPENDIX C RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BANK’S COUNTRY PROGRAMS with the country’s own development strategy. This measure does not rise to the level of “relevance,” which would also include whether the program is likely to produce an impact that is significant for the partner country’s development. 8. In many cases, the definition of national priorities (as well as CAS objectives) is broad and so a strong degree of overlap is to be expected. Indeed, 93 of the 96 country programs were deemed to be moderately satisfactory or better in aligning program objectives with national priorities. In all of the three cases where country programs fell short—Uzbekistan (FY02-05), Armenia (FY02-04), and Sao Tome and Principe (FY01-05)—programs were designed in the early phase of the matrix era. In Uzbekistan, the program directly pursued goals that were different from those of the government. In the other two, the programs were deemed not to be appropriate for the partner’s development. In Armenia, there was limited attention to the impact of growth on jobs and inequality, an omission consistent with later concern by the Bank’s Board regarding the impact of the program on poverty. And in Sao Tome and Principe, the Bank’s strategy did not align itself adequately to the country’s development situation. Ownership 9. One-third of country programs—35 of the 96 that were rated—had moderately satisfactory or satisfactory country ownership, defined as including support from inside and outside of government, as well as at all levels of government where appropriate, as shown in Figure C.1. There was a large improvement in ownership over the period, with 55 percent of programs initiated between FY04 and FY08 rated moderately satisfactory or better, compared to 18 percent initiated between FY98 and FY03. 10. In roughly half of the satisfactory programs, there was broad consultation that underpinned the design of the CAS, and government commitment was wellestablished. For example, in Armenia (FY05-08), there was deep consensus building in the design and implementation of the program, and collaboration with private and public bodies in project design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. In Maldives (FY00-07), CAS preparation engaged civil society, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and donors; projects showed strong political leadership and ownership. And in Morocco (FY06-08), there was a wideranging consultation process with key internal and external stakeholders, and during implementation the Bank maintained a continuous dialogue with the government and donors. 11. In the other satisfactory programs, there was no evidence of a consultative process presented in CASCR reviews. In practice, however, there was a sustained commitment to the program by government throughout the CAS period. This was the case in Mexico (FY05-08), where the program was very well-customized and 126
Page 1 and 2:
The Matrix System at Work An Evalua
Page 3 and 4:
©2012 Independent Evaluation Group
Page 5 and 6:
Costs of Country and Sector Strateg
Page 7 and 8:
Table 3.6. Total Cross-Support Sold
Page 10:
Abbreviations AAA AFR ARDE ARPP BET
Page 14 and 15:
Glossary Term Anchor sector directo
Page 16 and 17:
GLOSSARY Practice managers (PM) Reg
Page 18 and 19:
Overview The Matrix System at Work
Page 20 and 21:
OVERVIEW rather than on the 1997 ma
Page 22 and 23:
OVERVIEW satisfactory or better in
Page 24 and 25:
OVERVIEW toward capacity building a
Page 26 and 27:
OVERVIEW Innovation in the field is
Page 28 and 29:
OVERVIEW Figure D. Outcomes of Bank
Page 30 and 31:
OVERVIEW modernization in the corpo
Page 32 and 33:
OVERVIEW management structure but t
Page 34 and 35:
OVERVIEW Structure Bank-wide matrix
Page 36 and 37:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE interest and ow
Page 38 and 39:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Management cons
Page 40:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE that reach far
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2. The Strategic Alignment of Secto
Page 61 and 62:
CHAPTER 2 THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT O
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
CHAPTER 3 THE PROMISE OF A KNOWLEDG
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVIC
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116: CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVIC
Page 123 and 124: CHAPTER 5 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND
Page 145 and 146: 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 149 and 150: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 152 and 153: Appendix A Matrix Management and Or
Page 154 and 155: APPENDIX A MATRIX MANAGEMENT AND OR
Page 162 and 163: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF CASCR REVIEWS
Page 164 and 165: APPENDIX B EVALUATION METHODOLOGY a
Page 168 and 169: APPENDIX C RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFEC
Page 176 and 177: APPENDIX D EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCH
Page 196 and 197: Appendix E Key Findings from Sector
Page 198 and 199: APPENDIX E KEY FINDINGS FROM SECTOR
Page 206 and 207: Table E.1. Country Directors and Ma
Page 210 and 211: # Other Questions Q # 7 APPENDIX E
Page 214 and 215: APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 216 and 217:
APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix G Comparison of the Six Re
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX G PROFILES OF THE BANK’S
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix H Working across Organizat
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX H WORKING ACROSS ORGANIZAT
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix I Budgetary Incentives 65.
Page 240 and 241:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Bud
Page 242 and 243:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES 72.
Page 244 and 245:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES com
Page 246 and 247:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Fig
Page 248 and 249:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES mea
Page 250 and 251:
APPENDIX J WORKING ACROSS SECTORS A
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Appendix K World Bank Sector Strate
Page 258 and 259:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 260 and 261:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 262 and 263:
Appendix L International Finance Co
Page 264 and 265:
APPENDIX L IFC 2013 CHANGE INITIATI
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Note: Head
Page 272 and 273:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Table M.7.
Page 274 and 275:
Appendix N Managers Interviewed Nam
Page 276 and 277:
References Barnett, Michael N. and
Page 278 and 279:
REFERENCES Sy, Thomas and Laura Sue
Page 280 and 281:
Endnotes 1 See Wapenhans 1992, 1994
Page 282 and 283:
ENDNOTES appropriately assessed by
Page 284 and 285:
ENDNOTES 46 The respondents to this
Page 286:
ENDNOTES 71 See Safeguards and Sust
show all

The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?