It's Only Words : Validating the CPIA Governance Assessments
This study analyzes the validity of the World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional Assessments governance ratings, an important factor in allocating the Bank's concessionary International Development Association funds. It tests for cer...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17942525/only-words-validating-cpia-governance-assessments http://hdl.handle.net/10986/15884 |
| Summary: | This study analyzes the validity of the
World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional
Assessments governance ratings, an important factor in
allocating the Bank's concessionary International
Development Association funds. It tests for certain biases
in the ratings, and examines the quality of the written
justifications that accompany the ratings. The study finds
no evidence of bias in favor of International Development
Association-eligible countries, despite a potential moral
hazard problem inherent in the ratings process. However,
there is some evidence of an upward bias in ratings for one
region, relative to the other five regions. The study finds
significant regional differences in the quality of the
written justifications accompanying the six World Bank
regions' proposed ratings. The length of these
write-ups has exploded over time. Although higher-quality
write-ups are also longer on average, there is wide
dispersion in the word count at any given quality level, and
some long write-ups provide little relevant information.
Higher quality write-ups are associated with a lower
likelihood that central unit reviewers will either disagree
with proposed ratings, or request additional information to
assess the proposed rating. Controlling for quality, longer
write-ups are associated with a greater probability that
central reviewers will disagree with a proposed rating.
Although checks and balances built into the process appear
to work reasonably well, the author concludes that a more
proactive role for central unit reviewers and regional chief
economists' offices could further enhance the quality
of write-ups and reduce regional bias. |
|---|