|
Indicator 1 assesses the degree to which partner countries have operational development strategies. Like for Indicator 11, the scores for Indicator 1 for the 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration are derived from the World Bank’s Aid Effectiveness Review (AER), “Results-Based National Development Strategies: Assessment and Challenges Ahead.” The scores are based on aid effectiveness profiles that update to beginning-2007 those prepared for the World Bank’s 2005 Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) Progress Report, which contributed the scores for the 2006 Survey.
Presented below is a short description of the criteria and methodology used to assess Indicator 1. The aid effectiveness profiles and the AER “Results-Based National Development Strategies: Assessment and Challenges Ahead,” which includes more information on the assessment criteria and methodology, the country scores, good practice examples and recommendations to partner countries and their development partners toward making further progress, are available at www.worldbank.org/aer.
For questions, please contact: Janet Entwistle at jentwistle@worldbank.org or Filippo Cavassini at fcavassini@worldbank.org.
Assessment Criteria:
The AER refers to an operational development strategy as a prioritized outcome-oriented national development strategy that is drawn from a long-term vision and shapes a country’s public expenditures.
Three criteria are used to assess whether a country has such a strategy:
1. Unified strategic framework: the country has a coherent long-term vision with a medium-term strategy that is derived from that vision and tied to sectoral and local development strategies.
2. Prioritization: the country has development targets linked to a holistic and balanced set of long-term goals. Medium-term actions identified in the national development strategy are tied to these targets and follow a well-sequenced path.
3. Strategic link to the budget: the country has the fiscal resources and capacity to operationalize the strategy, including feeding back data on progress into strategy revisions and the budget.
Assessment Methodology:
1. Documentation: The AER team updated the profiles that were prepared for the 2005 CDF Progress Report.
2. Country Review: The aid effectiveness profiles were reviewed by partner countries and staff of development assistance agencies based in each participating country.
3. Scoring the Assessment Criteria: Based on the final aid effectiveness profiles, the AER team scored each assessment criteria using the LEADS methodology according to the guidelines presented below.
4. Overall scoring: To consolidate the individual assessment criteria into an overall score, the review team averaged the scores for the assessment criteria.
5. Paris target score: An overall score of D has been used to indicate a level of progress satisfactory to meet the Paris Declaration target.
LEADS Methdology
|
L
|
Little action (1): Due to a wide variety of circumstances, including political developments, capacity constraints and unforeseen events, action has remained at a virtual standstill.
|
|
E
|
Elements exist (2): There is some basis for making progress, either through what already exists, or definite plans.
|
|
A
|
Action taken (3): Progress is being made, although not yet enough, and the basis exists for even more substantive progress.
|
|
D
|
Developed (4): Significant action taken already, although further action is needed.
|
|
S
|
Sustainable (5): There are no warning signs of possible deterioration, and there is widespread expectation that the progress achieved is sustainable.
|
Guidelines used to score progress toward operational development strategies
|
Assessment Criteria
|
|
Score
|
Unified strategic framework
|
Prioritization
|
Strategic link to the budget
|
|
L
|
Government action is not guided by a long-term vision linked to a medium-term strategy, and there is little to no effort within the country to develop or update these strategic instruments.
|
There is little to no effort within the country to define long-term objectives and medium-term or short-term targets.
|
There has been little or no attempt to cost a medium-term strategy and link it to the budget, including through devising a medium-term fiscal framework.
|
|
E
|
A medium-term strategy is under preparation, but may not yet be derived from a long-term vision. Sector strategies are few, and may not yet be tied into a medium-term strategy. A strategic framework may be guiding short-term government action.
|
Initial efforts are underway to define holistic long-term objectives and prioritized medium-term or short-term targets.
|
There has been a preliminary attempt to cost a medium-term strategy and link it to the budget, including through initial efforts to prepare a medium-term fiscal framework.
|
|
A
|
There is a long-term vision and a medium-term strategy or strategies that may not be linked. Strategies in key sectors may not yet be integrated into national development strategy. The role of different strategy instruments in guiding policy is unproven, unclear, or provisional. Where they exist, efforts to align local with national strategy are preliminary.
|
There is a preliminary set or sets of specific long-term objectives and medium-term targets, and some prioritization of sequenced actions including attention to cross-cutting issues.
|
The medium-term strategy has been costed, linked to the medium-term fiscal framework and has some limited influence over the budget.
|
|
D
|
There is a long-term vision and medium-term strategy derived from the vision that is a reference point for policymakers, nationally, locally and at the sector level. Sector strategies and local development planning stem from the medium-term strategy and are sequenced with it.
|
The long-term vision and medium-term strategy identify objectives and targets linked to the MDGs but tailored, with some specificity, to country circumstances. The medium-term strategy focuses on a prioritized set of targets. It adequately addresses cross-cutting issues such as gender, HIV/AIDS, the environment, and governance.
|
A results framework is in place linking long-term goals to outcomes and outputs. The government is progressing toward performance-oriented budgeting to facilitate a link of the strategy with the medium-term fiscal framework and the budget, and helps focus capacity and resources at the national and local level on national objectives.
|
|
S
|
There are no warning signs of possible deterioration, and there is widespread expectation that the progress achieved is sustainable.
|
|
