Selectivity in Country Strategies : The Evidence
The World Bank Group (WBG) has adopted a new strategy which sets two ambitious goals of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. To operationalize the twin goals, the WBG is developing a more evidence-based and selective country enga...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/01/24156076/selectivity-country-strategies-evidence http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21707 |
| Summary: | The World Bank Group (WBG) has adopted a
new strategy which sets two ambitious goals of ending
extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. To
operationalize the twin goals, the WBG is developing a more
evidence-based and selective country engagement model, the
Country Partnership Framework (CPF). The Bank Group s
activities in any country will be at the intersection of
what the Systematic Country Diagnostic reveals, the
government s own development priorities and the WBG s
comparative advantage (OPCS). While the CPF is sharpening
the WBG s focus on strategic selectivity in its country
programs, the issue is longstanding. This paper is a first
attempt at piecing together the various strands of evidence
in order to understand the role and the practice of
selectivity in the WBG s country strategies, and explores
the link between selectivity and country program outcomes.
It reviews selectivity in 105 CASs, including Country
Partnership Strategies, during FY09-13. It also provides a
synthesis analysis on selectivity issues of 22 CAEs,
including Country Partnership Evaluations (CPEs), conducted
by IEG during FY05-14. The findings demonstrate that
selectivity matters for the overall development outcome of
CASs while controlling for other variables such as country
ownership, results framework, and GDP per capita. Moreover,
the estimations indicate that selectivity is more important
in countries with high levels of extreme poverty. Finally,
the paper concludes with the key lessons and issues for
further research. |
|---|