This chapter presents the first findings from the Kampala Principles Assessment on how stakeholders are contributing to strengthening the enabling environment for private sector engagement in development co-operation in partner countries. It presents insights on the state of relevant policies, the prevalence and inclusiveness of dialogues, the quality of engagement with the private sector, as well as the challenges to effective partnering and potential solutions to overcome them.
Making Development Co‑operation More Effective Progress Report 2026
Abstract
Findings from the Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA) – conducted for the first time in the Global Partnership 2023-26 monitoring round – shows that both partner country governments and development partners are investing in strengthening policies to guide private sector engagement in development co-operation.
Stakeholders generally agree that private sector engagement in development co-operation is contributing to development outcomes, though views differ on the extent to which it is adding value where needed the most. Development partners’ views on this are most positive, whereas stakeholder groups working at more local and/or grassroots levels – CSOs, trade unions and small firms – are less positive. Greater effort can ensure that engaging the private sector will benefit those most in need, such as by stronger targeting of priority groups, including vulnerable and marginalised populations.
Dialogues can help stakeholders agree on priorities, identify solutions to challenges and establish relationships; partner country governments and development partners alike are making notable efforts to organise dialogues on private sector engagement in development co-operation. However, there is scope for partner country governments to make them more inclusive and use them to greater effect, especially to build trust amongst stakeholders. Notably, partner country governments rarely feel fully consulted on development partners’ private sector engagement activities.
Partner country governments perform very well on some quality engagement indicators, e.g. aligning private sector engagement in development co-operation with relevant national and international standards. But some lack grievance mechanisms and only half track the results of private sector engagement and make them public. Development partners have made efforts to align with such standards, set up grievance mechanisms, track and make public results, and also conduct due diligence assessments, with particularly positive performance by multilateral development banks.
Private sector actors report significant challenges in engaging with development partners in development co-operation projects/programmes, citing providers’ cumbersome procedures, such as for funding applications, as a significant impediment to these partnerships. However, the private sector indicates that their engagement in development co-operation is building their capacity to contribute to development outcomes, with small firms in 83% of partner countries, and large firms in 94% of partner countries indicating this.
Against a backdrop of scarce development resources, there has been increasing focus on the role of the private sector1 in development co-operation, in view of its potential to contribute to tangible development outcomes in partner countries. However, achieving effective partnerships between partner country governments, businesses, development partners and other actors is challenging, for reasons such as trust deficits; capacity constraints; and differing priorities, mandates and risk-return profiles. The Kampala Principles for Effective Private Sector Engagement in Development Co-operation, endorsed by the Global Partnership in 2019, were developed to guide how all actors can contribute to making private sector engagement (PSE) in development co-operation more effective (GPEDC, 2019[1]). The Kampala Principles Assessment (KPA), introduced as an integral part of the Global Partnership monitoring framework in the 2023-26 round, offers insights on the extent to which the building blocks are in place for the effective engagement of the private sector in development co-operation. Findings from the KPA can support decision makers to deliver on the important agenda of mobilising private finance by shedding light on how to establish collaborations that make the best use of international public resources when engaging the private sector. As such, KPA findings on the quality of private sector engagement in development co-operation partnerships offer a relevant complement to data on the quantity of private finance being mobilised for development (OECD, 2025[2]). The KPA offers insights into whether development co-operation resources flowing to partner countries are being used to strengthen the enabling environment to amplify the contributions of the domestic private sector to sustainable development.
This chapter presents the first findings emerging from KPA implementation. It begins with a brief overview of what the KPA measures and how the assessment process takes place (Section 6.1). The remaining four sections present analysis across each of the four key metrics of the assessment (Table 6.1). Section 6.2 discusses the extent to which partner country governments and development partners have policies or strategies to guide PSE, as well as the characteristics of these policies, such as whether they target PSE towards people and places most in need. Section 6.3 looks at the extent to which PSE-related dialogues are being organised by partner country governments and development partners, while the quality of PSE projects and programmes is the focus of Section 6.4, which similarly considers the efforts of both partner country governments and development partners. Finally, Section 6.5 presents stakeholders’ perceptions of the challenges of PSE in development co-operation partnerships.
The KPA generates insights to track and stimulate greater effectiveness of private sector engagement in development co-operation. Its scope includes projects and programmes in partner countries that provide international public resources for private sector entities based in partner countries2 to deliver development priorities. The KPA involves a multi-stakeholder process, with data reported by the partner country government and individual development partners that engage the private sector in their in-country development co-operation. Focal points from CSOs, trade unions and the domestic private sector in the partner country also report on behalf of their constituencies. This allows for contrasting stakeholders’ views on good practices, challenges and opportunities for private sector engagement in development co-operation partnerships. As the only optional component of the monitoring framework, the KPA was undertaken by 25 of the 44 partner countries in the 2023-26 round.3 This chapter’s findings should therefore be read with attention to the specificities of the KPA itself. On the one hand, the 2023-26 round was the first country-level testing of the KPA methodology, and therefore differs from other components of the Global Partnership monitoring framework, which have been implemented and refined over multiple rounds. On the other hand, the opt-in nature of the KPA introduces the possibility of selection bias in the findings: for example, the partner countries that opted to do it could be those which are giving more policy priority to PSE in development co-operation. Notwithstanding this possibility, there is a similar distribution across income level and geography when comparing the 25 countries which opted for the KPA to the overall group of 44 countries which participated in the 2023-26 round.4
The five Kampala Principles – inclusive country ownership, results and targeted impact, inclusive partnership, transparency and accountability, and leave no one behind – broadly inform the KPA methodology. However, the assessment itself is organised as four key metrics, each of which relates to one or more of the Kampala Principles (Table 6.1).
Source: GPEDC (2022[3]), Guidance for the Kampala Principles Assessment, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/book-page/annex-2-guidance-kampala-principles-assessment
Nearly two-thirds of partner country governments which undertook the KPA have a policy on private sector engagement in development co-operation, but the extent to which they outline the roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups is uneven. In the Global Partnership’s 2016 Nairobi Outcome Document, stakeholders committed to “foster enabling policy environments for the business sector to support responsible, inclusive and sustainable business practices, and support structured dialogue and partnership to promote these approaches” (GPEDC, 2016[4]). Of the 24 governments that reported to the KPA, 15 indicate having a policy5 that lays out how the private sector should be engaged in development co-operation for sustainable development. The majority of these policies are part of national development plans or strategies. These policies are usually developed through inclusive processes, engaging a variety of stakeholder groups such as parliament, domestic CSOs, trade unions, domestic philanthropic organisations, domestic private sector, subnational governments and development partners. All 15 partner country governments with a policy on how the private sector should be engaged in development co-operation reported engaging the private sector as well as at least three additional stakeholder groups, while four partner countries reported engaging all these groups. Across the 15 countries, around 3 out of 4 private sector representatives who responded to the questionnaire (75% for small firms and 73% for large firms6), as well as 85% of CSO representatives, reported being aware of the policy. Furthermore, all 15 policies outline the rationale for working with the private sector in development co-operation, while most define roles for development partners (11), subnational governments (10) and parliament (10) in engaging the private sector. A smaller share defines the role of civil society (9), trade unions (8), and philanthropic organisations (5), suggesting there is scope overall for these policies to be clearer about how specific stakeholder groups are expected to contribute to private sector engagement in development co-operation in the country.
A large share (80%) of the relevant policies of partner country governments define priority sectors, while far fewer define priority regions or target groups. Twelve of the 15 policies refer to sectors the government sees as a priority for PSE. Yet only 9 policies identify target groups, including vulnerable and marginalised populations, and fewer than half (7) define priority regions. However, having a policy that defines priority sectors, regions and target groups does not appear to be correlated with a higher government perception that private sector engagement in development co-operation is adding value where it is most needed. This indicates that while articulating such priorities in a policy framework is important, it may be insufficient unless combined with other downstream actions, such as during project design, to increase the chances that private sector engagement in development co-operation will benefit the intended sectors, regions and population groups.
Of the development partners who engage the private sector in their development co-operation, more than three-quarters have a strategy to guide these activities, though their country offices are not always aware of them. Development partners in each of the 25 partner countries which undertook the KPA indicated whether they have development co-operation projects or programmes which engage the private sector (Box 6.1). Among providers with PSE, 77% report having a strategy which guides these activities. This might be a global strategy, a country-level strategy, or a combination of the two.7 As shown in Figure 6.1, these results vary by type of development partner, with DAC members and UN entities more likely to have a global strategy, and multilateral development banks (MDBs) more likely to have a country-specific strategy. Taken together, a picture emerges of providers investing reasonably well in policy frameworks for PSE in development co-operation. However, in some cases development partners have a global strategy of which colleagues in their country offices have no knowledge. This suggests that some providers could improve internal communication about their strategies, potentially as part of broader efforts to increase organisational readiness for private sector engagement (Donor Committee for Enterprise Development, 2018[5]).
Governments of the 25 partner countries invited representatives of a total of 79 development partners (32 bilateral and 47 multilateral providers) to report to the KPA. This resulted in 507 individual responses, from focal points representing the 79 development partners, to the question of whether the provider they represented engaged in PSE projects or programmes in that partner country. The 38% who replied in the negative did not continue with the KPA questionnaire, while those confirming PSE (62%) could complete the rest of the KPA questions. Data gathered through this initial filtering question shed light on the types of development partners more likely to engage the private sector through their development co-operation.
What types of development partners engage the private sector?
The 62% of development partner respondents (315 responses) who confirmed their country/organisation engages the private sector is comprised of 39% bilateral providers and 61% multilateral organisations. The bilateral group of respondents is made up almost entirely of DAC members, with only one participating non-DAC bilateral – Thailand – indicating they engage the private sector. Within the multilateral group, around 64% are UN entities, around 23% are MDBs, with the remainder including European Union institutions, vertical funds and other international organisations. The majority of these 315 respondents report that they engage the private sector in fewer than 20% of their projects in that country. Of those development partners that report that they engage the private sector in over 80% of their projects, the majority (56%) are UN entities, with the remainder comprised of DAC members and MDBs.
What do KPA findings say about development partners who are not engaging the private sector?
Thirty-eight percent of development partner respondents (192 responses) indicate that the provider they represent is not engaged in PSE projects or programmes in that partner country. Among providers without PSE, 50% are UN entities and 34% are DAC members. Based on their reporting in five partner countries, six of seven non-DAC bilateral providers who were invited to respond to the KPA (all except Thailand) indicated they do not engage the private sector in their development co-operation.
Proportion of private sector engagement in development co-operation strategies found at global level, country level, and both levels, by provider type
Note: The following are not presented due to very limited data: vertical funds, non-DAC bilaterals, and other international organisations.
Development partners’ PSE strategies – similar to those of partner country governments – are also more likely to identify priority sectors than priority regions or target groups. Seventy-four percent of development partners’ strategies define priority sectors, 69% define priority target groups, and 46% define priority regions. When providers’ strategies define priority target groups, they always include vulnerable and marginalised populations. However, this effort at the strategy level does not appear to be reflected at the project level. An analysis of over 900 PSE in development co-operation projects in Bangladesh, Egypt, El Salvador and Uganda in 2017-18 found that the targeting of beneficiaries was limited, particularly in connection with leaving no one behind, with only 11% of projects explicitly focused on rural communities, 5% on women, and 4% on the poor (GPEDC, 2019[6]). Findings from that analysis, while now somewhat dated, were among the factors which motivated the creation of the Kampala Principles.
Despite efforts to identify priority sectors, regions, and groups in policies and strategies, opinions vary on whether PSE is helping ensure no one is left behind
Stakeholders reporting to the KPA perceive that private sector engagement in development co-operation is adding value by contributing to their country’s development, and that it is partially contributing to delivering results where they are most needed. The international community has recognised the importance of involving the private sector in sustainable development efforts since at least 2015. Ten years later, the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) reiterated the importance of collaborating with the private sector, while also raising concerns over whether private sector activity is adequately prioritising sustainable development impact (UN DESA, 2025[7]). While there has been significant attention to the importance of mobilising private finance for development, global policy discourse has focused less on how development co-operation resources flowing to partner countries are being deployed, although existing guidance, including for providers using blended finance modalities, emphasises maximising development outcomes and impact (OECD, 2025[8]). However, there has been less attention on whether these resources are being used to strengthen the environment that enables the domestic private sector to contribute to sustainable development. KPA findings show that all 24 partner country governments and virtually all development partners (97%) agree that in general private sector engagement in development co-operation is adding development value in the country. When asked whether they think it is adding value where it is needed most, stakeholders also agree – at least “somewhat”, if not fully (Figure 6.2). However, different development actors perceive this to differing degrees. Development partners, who may have an influential role in designing their own PSE in development co-operation projects, have the most positive perception of its value. Interestingly, the stakeholder groups which are often working more closely at the local and/or grassroots levels – CSOs, trade unions and small firms – tend to have the least positive perception that PSE in development co-operation is adding value where needed the most. This divergence in perception may point to differing expectations across stakeholder groups of the visible value of PSE in development co-operation projects/programmes. It could also be explained by differing understandings between development partners and local actors of the people and places “most in need”. However, that the KPA has revealed differing viewpoints reflects a key objective of the KPA, namely to provide a starting point for dialogue. All told, efforts need to be reinforced to ensure that engaging the private sector for sustainable development will benefit those most in need, with country-level dialogues on KPA findings offering a concrete entry point for stakeholder groups to exchange both shared and diverging views (see Chapter 7).
Share of respondents who fully/partially/do not agree that private sector engagement in development co-operation is adding value where most needed
Note: Respondents could select ''very much'', ''somewhat'', or ''not at all’’ when asked if private sector engagement in development co-operation is delivering results where needed the most (priority sectors, regions, and target groups).
Three-quarters of partner country governments organise national dialogues on private sector engagement in development co-operation, and these are reported to be moderately inclusive overall. The Nairobi Outcome Document includes a commitment to “promote the dialogue and partnership between government and the business sector, and acknowledge the importance of collaboration to create an enabling environment for the formal and informal business sectors in all countries” (GPEDC, 2016[4]). More partner country governments (18 of 24) have invested in organising a dialogue than in developing a PSE-related policy (15 of 24). Dialogues can help stakeholders agree on priorities, identify solutions to challenges and establish relationships (GPEDC, 2019[1]). All 18 government representatives reported that the dialogues they organised resulted in joint collaboration with other stakeholders, at least to some extent. However, there is scope for partner country governments to make dialogues more inclusive. Of the 18 governments that have organised a dialogue, all reported having invited the private sector and development partners, 15 invited CSOs, and 13 invited subnational governments and trade unions. Parliament was invited to 9 and philanthropic organisations to only 6 dialogues.
National dialogues organised by partner country governments could be used to greater effect, especially to build trust amongst stakeholders. On average, partner country governments indicated that having more dialogue on PSE to increase mutual trust would be especially helpful for easing partnering challenges. Both trade unions and CSOs expressed similar views by choosing this as a priority action to ease partnering challenges. Given that most reporting partner country governments are organising national dialogues on PSE (18 out of 24), there could be an opportunity to re-orient the objectives of existing dialogues to better use them to build trust amongst stakeholders. An important first step would be ensuring that such dialogues are not only inclusive, but that stakeholders also have the opportunity to influence the objectives, agenda and focus of the discussions. Private sector actors participated in national dialogues held within the context of the Reflection, Dialogue and Action Phase of the 2023-26 round. Some of the outcomes of those dialogues include commitments from governments, development partners and private sector actors to strengthen business participation in policy and sectoral co-ordination platforms, to share information about opportunities for funding and partnerships with the private sector, and to involve the private sector earlier in policy formulation. Chapters 7 and 8 of this report provide further details.
Most development partners organise dialogues and/or consultations with country-level stakeholders on private sector engagement, but partner country governments only feel fully consulted in a small share of countries. Development partners with a strategy for engaging the private sector are more likely than those without such a strategy to also organise a dialogue (72% of development partner respondents with a strategy organised a dialogue, compared to only 43% of development partner respondents without a strategy). This is particularly the case for development partners who report having both a global-level and a country-specific PSE-related strategy. However, while partner country governments were invited to nearly all (84%) of such development partners’ dialogues, only 29% of governments indicated that they are fully consulted by providers on the latter’s private sector engagement in development co-operation activities. This suggests that dialogues organised by providers are not always being used to consult partner country governments on PSE activities in the country.
Partner country governments have a more positive perception than other stakeholders that private sector engagement in development co-operation dialogues organised by development partners address issues that are important to them. As shown in Figure 6.3, 58% of partner country governments very much agree that dialogues organised by development partners address their priorities, with the remainder somewhat agreeing with this statement. The views of other stakeholders are less positive. While 44% of large firm representatives very much agree that such dialogues addressed their priorities, this is the case for only 31% of both small firms and trade unions, and 29% of CSOs respondents. Only 25% of small firm representatives and 19% of large firm representatives very much agree that such dialogues resulted in joint collaboration with other stakeholder groups, and large firm representatives in two of the countries did not agree with this statement at all. While this pattern may reflect the primary objectives and technical focus of many PSE dialogues, it also highlights the importance of ensuring that PSE approaches also address concerns of other stakeholder groups, especially CSOs and trade unions, given their role in representing broader societal interests.
Stakeholders’ responses on whether private sector engagement in development co-operation dialogues organised by development partners address issues that are important to them
The KPA generates findings on several indicators related to the quality of private sector engagement in development co-operation in partner countries (listed in Table 6.1). This section presents the results of reporting by partner country governments and development partners on three indicators of the quality of private sector engagement in development co-operation: alignment with relevant national and international standards; results tracked and made publicly available; and whether grievance processes or mechanisms are in place. A fourth indicator (due diligence processes) is reported on by development partners alone.
Nearly all partner country governments (22 out of 24) report that private sector engagement in development co-operation in their country is aligned with national and international standards, such as environmental, social, governance and labour standards. Less universal are grievance mechanisms, with only 17 of these governments affirming there is a process or mechanism through which stakeholders can file complaints on private sector engagement in development co-operation. Furthermore, even when the government has a grievance mechanism in place, other stakeholders are not consistently aware of it. For example, CSO respondents in over half of the 17 countries reported being unaware of the grievance mechanism.
Only half of partner country governments indicate that they monitor and collect results on private sector engagement in development co-operation and make them public. Tracking and reporting on the results of private sector engagement in development co-operation initiatives are an important measure of quality. While 16 out of 24 partner country governments indicate that they track results of private sector engagement in development co-operation projects and programmes, only 12 of them also make these results publicly available. As discussed in Chapter 3, which looks at the degree to which overall development results are tracked and made public, around half of the 44 countries which undertook the monitoring both have a progress report of their national development strategies and make that report public. This points to an area for improvement in the future: not only to increase transparency, but given the importance of systematic results tracking for assessing impact, to determine if private sector engagement in development co-operation is translating into results for intended beneficiaries, including those most in need, while also having grievance mechanisms in place to avoid doing harm.
MDBs are more likely than other providers to have key quality elements of private sector engagement in development co-operation in place. Figure 6.4 shows the extent to which different types of providers are making efforts across each of the four measures of the quality of their projects and programmes that engage the private sector. What emerges clearly is that MDBs perform better across three of the four elements than either UN entities or DAC members. This is likely due to their relative maturity and long history of working with the private sector (GPEDC MDB Working Group, 2019[9]). This is particularly the case for tracking and making results public and establishing grievance mechanisms, and to a lesser but still notable degree for conducting due diligence assessments. While different types of providers operate in different ways, these findings suggest that MDBs have lessons to share with other development partners. Guidance is available – especially the Kampala Principles Toolkit (GPEDC, 2023[10]) – to support development partners to improve their approaches across all the quality elements.
Proportion of development partners with key quality measures in place, by type of provider
Note: The following are not presented due to very limited data: vertical funds, non-DAC bilaterals, and other international organisations.
The private sector in partner countries tends to find it difficult to partner with development partners in development co-operation projects/programmes, citing providers’ procedures as a significant impediment. Figure 6.5 illustrates this finding, indicating that the representatives of small firms in 9 countries (half of the 18 respondents) and of large firms in 12 countries (the majority of the 17 respondents) consider partnering with development partners to be difficult or somewhat difficult. Private sector respondents largely converge in their view that providers’ procedures related to private sector engagement in development co-operation are a leading factor in making partnerships with them difficult. Specifically, the private sector would like to see easier procedures for applying for funding from providers; more support and guidance to complete funding applications; clearer communication from providers on funding opportunities; and more harmonisation among providers to streamline the procedures required of private sector partners. These challenges have been discussed in some country-level dialogues in response to KPA findings, for example in Lao PDR where development partners committed to streamline their administrative procedures (see Chapter 7).
Providers’ procedures can, however, be an important public sector safeguard in connection with how the private sector accesses and uses development co-operation resources. Nonetheless, development partners have long acknowledged the need to address these concerns, for example by simplifying proposal processes and clearly communicating opportunities for engagement (OECD, 2016[11]). These findings show that still more effort is needed, although guidance and good practices are available to support providers in transitioning to more effective ways of working with private sector partners (Donor Committee for Enterprise Development, 2018[5]); (GPEDC, 2023[10]). The private sector’s emphasis on providers’ procedures is to some extent in contrast with views of partner country governments, civil society and trade unions, who are more likely to see increased dialogue as key to overcoming partnering challenges, as discussed below.
Responses from private sector representatives on how easy/difficult it is to engage in partnerships with development partners, by number of countries for which each response was recorded
Note: Based on responses by a representative of large firms in 17 countries and small firms in 18 countries, of the 25 countries which conducted the KPA.
Despite these challenges, stakeholders note that private sector engagement in development co-operation is building their capacity to contribute to development outcomes. Responses by the private sector indicate that their engagement in development co-operation is building their capacity to contribute to development outcomes, with small firms in 83% of partner countries, and large firms in 94% of partner countries indicating this. CSOs in 68% of countries and trade unions in 69% of countries similarly indicate that their own capacity to contribute to development outcomes is being built through private sector engagement in development co-operation. This is a notable finding: incrementally building the capacity of domestic stakeholders to contribute to sustainable development is arguably one of the most important contributions of international development resources.
References
[5] Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (2018), Towards Strategic Private Sector Engagement: A summary of innovations and institutional change in donor agencies, https://www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/Strategic-private-sector-engagement-summary-of-DCED-briefing-note.pdf.
[10] GPEDC (2023), Kampala Principles Toolkit, https://effectivecooperation.org/kampala-principle-development-partners (accessed on 26 February 2026).
[3] GPEDC (2022), Guidance for the Kampala Principles Assessment, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/book-page/annex-2-guidance-kampala-principles-assessment.
[6] GPEDC (2019), Effective Private Sector Engagement through Development Co-operation: Background for Consultations, https://effectivecooperation.org/sites/default/files/documents/PSE-Issue-Areas-Paper-for-Consultation.pdf.
[1] GPEDC (2019), Kampala Principles on Effective Private Sector Engagement in Development Co-operation, https://effectivecooperation.org/content/kampala-principles-effective-private-sector-engagement-through-development-co-operation.
[4] GPEDC (2016), Nairobi Outcome Document. Second High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, https://effectivecooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/HLM2-Outcome-Doc-Third-Draft-14-Nov-16.pdf.
[9] GPEDC MDB Working Group (2019), Multilateral Development Banks and Private Sector Engagement for Sustainable Development, https://effectivecooperation.org/content/leaving-no-one-behind-mdbs-working-together-engage-private-sector-achieve-sustainable (accessed on 12 May 2026).
[2] OECD (2025), CRS – Private: Mobilised private finance for development (dataset), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/n2 (accessed on 12 May 2026).
[8] OECD (2025), OECD DAC Blended Finance Guidance 2025, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e4a13d2c-en.
[11] OECD (2016), Private Sector Engagement for Sustainable Development: Lessons from the DAC, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266889-en.
[7] UN DESA (2025), Outcome Document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/Compromiso%20de%20Sevilla%20for%20action%2016%20June.pdf.
← 1. The private sector is defined as organisations that engage in profit-seeking activities and have a majority private ownership (i.e. are not owned or operated by a government). This term includes financial institutions and intermediaries, multinational companies, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, co-operatives, individual entrepreneurs and farmers who operate in the formal and informal sectors. It excludes actors with a non-profit focus, such as private foundations and civil society organisations (OECD, 2016[11]).
← 2. Specifically this includes domestic/partner country private sector companies, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and the informal sector, as well as multinational companies based in the partner country.
← 3. Twenty-five partner countries undertook the KPA, but due to capacity constraints the government of one partner country did not report data, despite initial interest and commitment to report. Therefore, findings related to behaviours of partner country governments are based on a total sample of 24 respondents. As other stakeholders in that country did report data, their data are included in findings related to the behaviours of those stakeholder groups.
← 4. For example, 40% of the 25 countries which undertook the KPA are in the low-income category, with 32% of the 44 countries that participated in the 2023-26 round falling in this income category. There is a similarly close distribution across other income categories for the KPA countries as compared to the 44 countries. As related to geographic distribution, 56% of the KPA countries are in Africa, while this figure is 50% of the 44 countries, again with similar distribution in other regions.
← 5. The KPA questionnaire refers to “policy/strategy” for the policies and strategies of both partner country governments and development partners. In this chapter this has been simplified to “policies” when referring to the policies/strategies of partner country governments and to “strategies” for the policies/strategies of development partners.
← 6. Given the heterogeneity of the private sector, the KPA methodology invites reporting from two private sector focal points in each country: one representing export-oriented firms and multinational companies (referred to as “large firms”) and a second representing formal/informal MSMEs, including social enterprises and co-operatives (“small firms”).
← 7. Development partner respondents who confirmed the existence of a strategy on engaging the private sector in development co-operation indicated where that strategy could be found, selecting from the following options (multiple answers possible): (a) a section in the country-specific strategy or partnership framework; (b) a stand-alone country-specific PSE strategy; (c) a section of a global policy/strategy or partnership framework; (d) a stand-alone global policy/strategy on private sector engagement in development co-operation; or (e) other.