JULY 2017 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Punam Chuhan-Pole and comprising Vijdan Korman, Mapi M. Buitano, and Beatrice A. Berman. Sajitha Bashir, Paul Brenton, Cesar Calderon, Georges Comair, Carolina Giovannelli, Dominic S. Haazen, Wendy Karamba, Daniel John Kirkwood, Waleed Haider Malik, Emma Mercedes Monsalve Montiel, Cedric Mousset, Nadia Piffaretti, Ayago Esmubancha Wambile, Penny Williams, and Luis Diego-Barrot contributed to the report. Christian Yves Gonzalez, Vivek Suri, and country teams provided valuable comments. The report was prepared under the general guidance of Albert G. Zeufack. ii Contents 2016 CPIA Results for Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CPIA Africa: Compare Your Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Country Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Benin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Cabo Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Cameroon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Central African Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Chad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Comoros. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Congo, Democratic Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Congo, Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Côte d’Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Eritrea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Gambia, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Guinea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Madagascar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Malawi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Mali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Mauritania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Mozambique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Niger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 São Tomé and Príncipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 Senegal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 South Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Tanzania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Appendix A: CPIA Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Appendix B: Country Groups and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1 List of Figures Figure 1 Taxonomy of Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Growth in 2015–17 versus 1995–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Policy Performance in Resilient and Other Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 3 Quality of the Business Regulatory Framework in Sub-Saharan Africa, by country group. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 4 Government Effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa, by country group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 5 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Figure 6 CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Figure 7 Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 CPIA Scores, by Cluster and Country Group in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 9 CPIA Scores by Cluster and Country Group, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure A.1 Trend in Quality of Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure A.2 Changes in the Economic Management Cluster, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure A.3A Variation in International Reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2012-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure A.3B Inflation: Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure A.4 Fiscal Deficit in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure A.5 Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure A.6 Evolution of the Risk of Debt Stress: Low-Income Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure B.1 Trading across Borders: Distance to the Frontier for Selected Countries and Regions, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure B.2 Cost of Domestic Logistical Processes of Exporting and Importing ($ per container) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure B.3 Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure B.4 Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure B.5 Overall Doing Business: Distance to the Frontier Score in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2017 Compared with 2012 . . 24 Figure BC.1.1 Gender Gaps in Agriculture Productivity, by Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure C.1 Average CPIA Scores for Equity of Public Resource Use, by Country Group, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure C.2 Equity of Public Resource Use CPIA Scores, by Country, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure C.3 Statistical Capacity Score and Poverty Measurement Component, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure C.4 Distribution of the CPIA Score for Health, 2015 and 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure C.5 Correlation between the CPIA Score for Health and GNI and Health Expenditure, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure C.6 Correlation between the CPIA Score for Health and Health Outcomes, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure C.7 Gross Intake Ratio in Grades 1, 6, 7, and 9 in Selected Countries, 2000 and Most Recent Year. . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure C.8 Out-of-School Rate for the Poorest and Richest Quintiles for Children Ages 6–14 and 7–15. . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure C9 Average Social Protection CPIA Score, by Country Group and Social Safety Net Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure BC.2.1 Social Safety Net Coverage: Selected Cash Transfer Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure C10 Distribution of Environment CPIA Scores for Countries in Africa, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure C11 Environment CPIA Score, by Country Group, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure D.1 Trust in Governance Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure D.2 Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure D.3 Cluster D Scores in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure D.4 Change in Cluster D Score in 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure D.5 Elements of Public Financial Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure D.6 Compliance Time for Filing and Paying Taxes, by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure D.7 Access to Justice in African Countries: Citizen Views and Experiences with Formal Courts . . . . . . . . . . . 46 List of Maps Map C.1 Overall Results for Environmental and Natural Resources Management, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 List of Tables Table A.1 Changes in the Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table BC.2.1 Main Features of Selected Cash Transfer Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table D.1 Changes in Cluster D Scores, by Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table D.2 Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2 2 0 1 6 C P I A R E S U LT S F O R A F R I C A 3 2016 CPIA AFRICA REPORT Summary u Policy and institutional quality weakened in Sub-Saharan Africa amid a difficult global economic landscape and challenging domestic conditions. The average Country Policy and Institutional Assessment score for the region’s IDA-eligible countries edged lower to 3.1 in 2016. u Forty percent of the countries saw a deterioration in their overall quality of policies and institutions in 2016, more than in 2015, and the number of countries with a decline in CPIA score outpaced improvers by a margin of two to one. Weaker performance was evident across a range of countries, especially among commodity exporters and fragile countries. u The dispersion in policy and institutional quality among the region’s IDA countries increased in 2016. With a CPIA score of 4.0, Rwanda again led all countries in the region; Senegal and Kenya were among the top scoring countries, each posting a score of 3.8. The number of countries with relatively weak performance (scores of 3.2 or less) ticked up, and now accounts for more than half the countries in the region. u Eroded macroeconomic policy buffers constrained the scope for countries to formulate policies to mitigate the effects of less favorable terms of trade, slowdown in global growth, and difficult domestic conditions on economic activity. The quality of economic management deteriorated in many Sub- Saharan African countries, extending the downward trend of this policy cluster of the CPIA. The slippage in performance was evident across all three policy areas: monetary and exchange rate policy, fiscal policy, and debt policy. Among the structural policies cluster, improvements in financial inclusion, especially digital financial inclusion, continued to be observed across the continent, but rising risks in the financial sector in several countries pulled down the performance of this sector. u On the upside, there were positive developments in policies for social inclusion and equity. Namely, the human development policy area improved slightly, reflecting gains in health sector performance in a few countries, and the quality of social protection and labor edged up due to a strengthening of safety net programs in some countries. Reversing the trend observed in 2015, there was a modest net gain in the number of countries registering an improvement in performance of the public sector management and institutions cluster: 10 countries experienced an increase, while six recorded a decline. Within this cluster, there was an uptick in the quality of public administration. u There is considerable variation in performance across country groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. Countries exhibiting economic resilience lead other countries on strength of macroeconomic policy frameworks, quality of policies that help bolster and sustain growth over the longer term and make it more inclusive, and accountability and effectiveness of public institutions. u The latest CPIA results show that performance on policy and institutional quality in Sub-Saharan Africa’s non-fragile IDA countries remains comparable to that of similar countries elsewhere. The reverse pattern is seen for the region’s fragile countries, which generally continue to lag fragile countries outside the region. Overall, the average CPIA score for the region’s IDA countries is weaker than the average of other IDA countries. 4 Recent Trends and Analysis Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) Africa is an annual report that describes the progress Sub-Saharan African countries are making on strengthening the quality of their policies and institutions. The report presents CPIA scores for the 38 African countries that are eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA), the concessional financing arm of the World Bank Group.1 CPIA scores reflect the quality of a country’s policy and institutional framework across 16 dimensions, grouped into four clusters: economic management (cluster A), structural policies (cluster B), policies for social inclusion and equity (cluster C), and public sector management and institutions (cluster D, also referred to as the governance cluster). The scores, which are on a scale of 1 to 6, with 6 being the highest, are computed by World Bank staff and based on quantitative and qualitative information. The assessment also relies on the judgments of World Bank staff. CPIA scores are used mainly to inform IDA’s allocation of resources to poor countries. Yet the information contained in the CPIA is potentially valuable to governments, the private sector, civil society, researchers, and the media as a tool to monitor their country’s progress and benchmark it against progress in other countries. By presenting the CPIA scores for African countries, this report aims to provide stakeholders with information that can support evidence-based debate that can, in turn, lead to better development outcomes. This year’s report assesses developments in policy and institutional quality in 2016 as measured by the CPIA score. Sub-Saharan Africa faced another challenging year in 2016. Economic activity continued to weaken, amid less favorable terms of trade, slowdown in global growth, and difficult domestic conditions. Output growth decelerated sharply to 1.3 percent, the slowest pace in over two decades and not as stellar as the average annual growth of around 5 percent in the pre-global financial crisis period of 1995–2008. Regional growth in 2016 was insufficient to raise gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, which contracted by 1.3 percent. At the same time, Sub-Saharan Africa’s poverty rate remains high: 41 percent of the region’s population—nearly 390 million people—were living in extreme poverty in 2013. Weak economic performance threatens gains in poverty reduction, and the region urgently needs to regain momentum on growth and make it more inclusive. Some countries have shown signs of economic resilience, growing at much faster rates than others (figure 1). Recent analysis undertaken in Africa’s Pulse identifies countries that have experienced strong growth, and examines the links between the quality of policies and institutions and better economic performance. Countries with a strong GDP growth rate—above the top tercile of the Sub- Saharan African distribution (5.4 percent) between 1995 and 2008—in recent years and over a longer period are classified as “established.” “Improved” countries are those with a growth rate below the top tercile in 1995–2008, but with a recent rate of growth higher than that of the top tercile. Established and improved performers are viewed as being resilient.2 The latest data show that only seven of 45 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa exhibit resilience: Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, and Tanzania. Overall, the analysis finds that the difficult economic conditions facing the region in 2015 and 2016 have taken a toll on countries’ economic resilience. 1 The report covers the 38 IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that had a CPIA score in 2016. See appendix B. 2 Other countries are not viewed as having economic resilience. Countries with recent growth performance between the bottom and top tercile are classified as “stuck in the middle”; those with persistently weak performance are classified as “falling behind”; and those with a growth rate below the bottom tercile in recent years, but not over a longer period, are classified as “slipping.” 5 FIGURE 1 Taxonomy of Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Growth in 2015–17 versus 1995–2008 Côte d’Ivoire, 9 Improved Established Ethiopia, Kenya, Ethiopia Mali, Rwanda, 8 Senegal, and Côte d’Ivoire Tanzania are the Tanzania 7 Senegal countries in the Rwanda region showing 6 Kenya Mali resilience. Guinea-Bissau Cameroon Burkina Faso 5 Uganda Mozambique Niger Ghana Stuck in the middle Congo, Dem. Rep. 4 Madagascar Gambia, The Zambia 3 Malawi Falling behind Gabon Guinea Slipping 2 Botswana Angola Zimbabwe GDP growth, 2015-17 1 Nigeria Congo, Rep. South Africa ≈ ≈ –4 –2 0 2 4 6 8 10 14 35 Burundi –1 Chad –2 –3 ≈ Equatorial Guinea –7 –8 GDP growth, 1995-2008 Source: Africa’s Pulse, April 2017. Resilient countries have better policy and institutional quality than other countries. Although macroeconomic policy vulnerabilities, especially fiscal vulnerabilities, have increased across the region, the quality of the monetary framework and fiscal policies remains generally stronger in established and improved performers compared with other countries. Public debt-to-GDP ratios are also lower in these countries (figure 2). Relatively stronger macroeconomic policy frameworks mean that these countries 6 have more flexibility to formulate a policy response to Policy Performance in Resilient and Other Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa FIGURE 2 economic shocks. In tandem, 50 Resilient countries have resilient countries perform 45 lower public Median debt-to-GDP ratio (%) better on policies that help 40 debt-to- bolster and sustain growth over 35 GDP ratios than other the longer term and make it 30 countries in more inclusive. For example, 25 the region. on structural policies that 20 boost competitiveness, foster 15 private sector development, 10 2014 2016 and promote diversification, Resilient countries Other countries in SSA these countries perform better, as evidenced by higher scores Source: World Economic Outlook, 2017. on the quality of the business regulatory environment Quality of the Business Regulatory Framework in FIGURE 3 Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group (figure 3) and greater level The quality of of financial depth. Finally, the business 4.0 regulatory the countries categorized as Business environment CPIA score 3.5 environment established and improved is relatively 3.0 stronger exhibit greater quality of in resilient government effectiveness 2.5 countries. (figure 4), respect for the rule 2.0 of law, and transparency and accountability of the public 1.5 sector. Nevertheless, there 1.0 is considerable scope across 2008 2016 all countries in the region Resilient countries Other countries in SSA to accelerate and deepen Source: CPIA database. structural and institutional reforms that will boost Government Effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group FIGURE 4 productivity and provide Resilient 0.0 Government effectiveness ( -2.5 to 2.5 max) countries the basis for sustainable and continue to inclusive growth. -0.2 outperform -0.4 other countries in -0.6 the quality of government -0.8 effectiveness. -1.0 -1.2 2006 2015 Resilient countries Other countries in SSA Source: World Governance Indicators database, World Bank. 7 2016 CPIA Results Policy and institutional quality weakened in Sub-Saharan Africa amid challenging global and domestic conditions. The average CPIA score for the region’s IDA-eligible countries edged lower to 3.1 in 2016. Rwanda again led all countries in the region with a score of 4.0 (figure 5). Other countries at the high end of the score range were Senegal and Kenya, each with a score of 3.8. The number of countries with relatively weak performance—that is, with scores of 3.2 or less—ticked up and account for more than half the countries in the region. FIGURE 5 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2016 The regional dispersion in The average policy and institutional quality Rwanda 4.0 CPIA score for Kenya 3.8 increased, as a deterioration in the region’s all four clusters of the CPIA in IDA-eligible Senegal 3.8 countries Cabo Verde 3.7 South Sudan pulled down the edged lower Tanzania 3.7 low end of the score range. to 3.1 in 2016. Burkina Faso 3.6 Rwanda again Uganda 3.6 Nearly 60 percent of the led all countries Ethiopia 3.5 in the region IDA countries in the region Ghana 3.5 with a score of saw a measurable change in Benin 3.4 4.0, followed overall policy and institutional by Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire 3.4 Kenya, each Mali 3.4 quality in 2016, mostly with a score Mauritania 3.4 on the downside. Weaker of 3.8. Niger 3.4 performance was especially Lesotho 3.3 evident among commodity Nigeria 3.3 Zambia 3.3 exporters and fragile countries, Cameroon 3.2 but also in other countries Guinea 3.2 (figure 6). Forty percent of Mozambique 3.2 the countries (15), more Madagascar 3.2 than in 2015, experienced Malawi 3.2 Sierra Leone 3.2 a deterioration in their CPIA Liberia 3.1 score. Far fewer countries (7) São Tomé and Príncipe 3.1 saw improvements, similarly to SSA-IDA Average 3.1 the outcome in 2015. Broadly, Burundi 3.0 the number of countries Togo 3.0 Comoros 2.9 with weaker overall scores Congo, Dem. Rep. 2.9 outpaced improvers by a Congo, Rep. 2.9 margin of two to one. Gambia, The 2.9 Chad 2.7 There were some common Zimbabwe 2.7 patterns across countries that Guinea-Bissau 2.5 experienced a weakening Sudan 2.5 Central African Republic 2.4 in their overall policy and Eritrea 1.9 institutional quality. All but South Sudan 1.6 two of these countries posted 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 a decline in the economic Source: CPIA database. management cluster. The deterioration in other 8 CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2016 FIGURE 6 The number 0.2 of countries Below SSA average Above SSA average with weaker CPIA scores 0.1 SDN COM MDG GIN CIV outpaced the Change in overall CPIA score, 2015-2016 CMR MRT number of improvers by a margin of two 0.0 to one. 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 DRC NGA BEN UGA -0.1 CAR TCD COG BDI SLE NER GHA CPV -0.2 ZWE Falling behind Slipping -0.3 SSD MOZ Overall CPIA score, 2016 Source: CPIA database. Note: The orange dots indicate fragile countries. clusters was less widespread, at six countries apiece for the structural policies, policies for social inclusion and equity, and governance clusters. The sharpest fall in the aggregate CPIA score was witnessed in Mozambique and South Sudan, a decrease of 0.3 point. For Mozambique, the decline reflects the economic crisis in the country following the discovery of hidden debts in 2016. For South Sudan, the deterioration in the score indicates the broad-based erosion of policy and institutional quality amid conflict and political instability. Both countries have seen a cumulative decline of 0.5 point in their score since 2012. Zimbabwe’s 0.2-point decline, which reversed the 0.2-point gain in the CPIA in 2015, was largely due to lack of fiscal prudence and central bank financing of the fiscal shortfall. Other countries experienced a less sharp slippage in policy and institutional quality: Benin, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, Cabo Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Uganda all saw a 0.1-point drop in the CPIA. In some cases, the slippage reflects a continuing weakening of the policy framework (Burundi, Cabo Verde, and Nigeria). Countries with improvement in policy and institutional quality experienced modest gains in the aggregate CPIA. Gains were capped at 0.1 point in all seven countries in this category: Côte d’Ivoire, the Comoros, Cameroon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania, and Sudan. All but one of these countries experienced stronger performance in the quality of governance, especially in the quality of budgetary and financial management. In a few countries, the quality of policies for social inclusion and equity also improved. The higher score in the Comoros and Guinea represents the second consecutive year of gains. A few countries saw tangible improvements in one or more policy areas of the CPIA that did not translate into a lift in the aggregate country score (Burkina Faso, Tanzania, and Togo). Elsewhere, improvement in one policy area was offset by weakness in another (Senegal and Ethiopia). There were notable divergent trends in the regional performance of the components of the CPIA. Unfavorable economic conditions continued to take a toll on countries across the region, deepening 9 macroeconomic FIGURE 7 Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–16 vulnerabilities. With 4.0 Divergent macroeconomic policy trends across the buffers continuing to components erode, the scope for fiscal of the CPIA 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 narrowed the 3.3 3.3 and monetary policy CPIA score gap between 3.2 to mitigate shocks to the four policy 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 economic activity was clusters. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 constrained. A more 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 challenging policy environment pulled down the quality of 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 economic management Cluster A: Economic management to an average score of 3.2 Cluster B: Structural policies (figure 7). This movement Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion and equity Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions reflects a continuing Source: CPIA database. weakening trend in the quality of economic management in recent years (2014-16). The slippage in performance was evident across all three policy areas: monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt. The most affected was fiscal policy, with nearly one-fourth of the region’s countries experiencing a worsening of this component. In some cases, weakness in the macroeconomic framework was evident across all policy areas of economic management (the Republic of Congo and Mozambique). Among the structural policies cluster, rising risks in the financial sector in several countries pulled down the performance of this sector (and the CPIA score of this component), but the cluster score was unchanged. Improvements in financial inclusion were observed across the region, and financial infrastructure is being strengthened as well. There were positive developments in policies for social inclusion and equity. Namely, the human development policy area improved slightly, reflecting gains in health sector performance in a few countries, and the quality of social protection and labor edged up due to a strengthening of safety net programs in some countries. Yet, these favorable trends did not translate into measurable improvements in the policies for social inclusion and labor cluster score. Reversing the trend observed in 2015, there was a modest net gain in the number of countries registering an improvement in performance of the public sector management and institutions cluster: 10 countries experienced an increase, while six recorded a decline. Within this cluster, there was an uptick in the quality of public administration, but not in the cluster score. The divergent trends across the components of the CPIA narrowed the gap between the four policy clusters. A deterioration in the quality of economic management in recent years has pulled down the score for this cluster to that of structural policies and policies for social inclusion and equity. At the same time, the governance cluster continues to lag all other clusters, with a score of 3.0. The pattern of a weaker macroeconomic framework marks a departure from the generally sound macroeconomic policies that countries had adopted in the period preceding the global financial crisis and in the wake of the crisis. This worsening trend, along with limited improvement in other policy areas, constrains countries’ efforts to regain the momentum on growth. 10 Not surprisingly, there is considerable variation CPIA Scores, by Cluster and Country Group in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2016 FIGURE 8 in performance across 4.5 Resilient countries country groups in 4.0 4.0 lead all other 3.6 3.6 3.6 Sub-Saharan Africa. 3.4 country 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Resilient countries lead 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 groups on 2.9 CPIA score 3.0 2.8 2.9 strength of other countries in the 2.8 2.8 2.6 policy and region on strength of 2.5 institutional policy and institutional 2.0 quality. quality (figure 8). The 1.5 performance gap 1.0 between these two Cluster A: Cluster B: Cluster C: Cluster D: Public Overall CPIA Economic Structural policies Policies for social sector management groups is especially management inclusion and institutions large in the quality of SSA IDA average Fragile countries in SSA Resilient countries in SSA Other countries in SSA economic management (0.9-point difference in Source: CPIA database. CPIA score), but also in other policy areas. The CPIA Scores by Cluster and Country Group, 2016 FIGURE 9 gap between non-fragile 4.0 The CPIA and fragile countries is 3.6 scores of likewise large across all 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 Sub-Saharan policy areas. The latest 3.0 Africa’s 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 non-fragile CPIA results show that 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 CPIA score 2.6 countries are performance on policy 2.5 comparable to and institutional quality those of other 2.0 non-fragile in Sub-Saharan Africa’s countries, non-fragile IDA countries 1.5 but the remains comparable to performance 1.0 Fragile Countries Fragile countries Non-fragile Non-fragile countries of the region’s that of similar countries in SSA outside SSA countries in SSA outside SSA fragile elsewhere (figure 9). countries Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural policies generally lags The reverse pattern is Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions that of fragile seen for the region’s Overall CPIA score countries fragile countries, which elsewhere. Source: CPIA database. generally continue to lag fragile countries outside the region. Overall, the average CPIA score for the region’s IDA countries is weaker than the average for other IDA countries. Countries with resilient growth performance tend to have better quality of policies and institutions than non-fragile countries outside the region. 11 Analysis of CPIA Components CLUSTER A: ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT The quality of monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt policies is covered under this cluster. The quality of economic management deteriorated to a CPIA score of 3.2, extending the downward trend in this policy cluster. Continued low commodity prices and a slowdown in global economic growth made 2016 another difficult year for many African economies. Unfavorable external developments, in conjunction with often difficult domestic conditions, put pressure on already weakened fiscal and external buffers. The scope for pursuing counter-cyclical policies to mitigate shocks to economic activity was constrained, complicating economic management in many Sub-Saharan African countries. The score for cluster A fell to 3.2 in 2016, as the quality of economic management continued the downward trend that began in 2014. The weaker performance was experienced across the three policy areas of economic management: monetary and exchange rate policy, fiscal policy, and debt policy (figure A.1). Over a third of the FIGURE A.1 Trend in Quality of Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–16 countries—13 countries All three 3.7 of the 38 IDA countries in policy areas of economic the region—registered a 3.5 management— deterioration in the quality monetary and 3.3 CPIA score, 2016 of economic management exchange rate, fiscal, 3.1 (figure A.2). Nearly half (six) and debt— of these are commodity weakened in 2.9 exporters. Slow adjustment 2016. 2.7 to a large terms-of-trade 2.5 shock or implementation of 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 inappropriate policies has Cluster A: Economic management Monetary and exchange rate policy hampered macroeconomic Fiscal policy Debt policy stabilization in these Source: CPIA database. countries. Several of the countries with a deterioration in this policy cluster are fragile, reflecting that conflict and fragility can heighten macroeconomic vulnerability. The sharpest decline in the quality of economic management was seen in Mozambique, where the discovery of previously undisclosed external debts compounded the problems of low commodity prices, droughts, and conflict, and dented confidence in the economy and management of public finances and derailed economic stability. Often, countries experienced a decline in more than one policy area in 2016, reflecting the interconnected nature of economic management (table A.1). Bucking the weakening trend, four countries saw an improvement in the quality of economic management—in some cases on the back of efforts aimed at restoring macroeconomic stabilization. 12 Changes in the Economic Management Cluster, 2016 FIGURE A.2 0.4 Changes in Economic Management Cluster Scores Over a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 third of the 0.2 countries—13 of 0.0 38—registered a deterioration –0.2 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 in the quality –0.2 –0.2 –0.2 –0.2 of economic –0.4 –0.3 –0.3 management; –0.4 nearly half –0.6 –0.5 –0.5 of these are –0.8 commodity –0.8 exporters. –1.0 Ethopia Guinea São Tomé and Príncipe Sudan Benin Burundi Niger Cabo Verde Central African Republic Chad Uganda Congo, Dem. Rep. Nigeria Zimbabwe Congo, Rep. South Sudan Mozambique Source: CPIA database. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy This component covers the quality of monetary and exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework. Following a 0.1-point decline in 2015, the regional score for this policy fell a further 0.1 point to 3.3 in 2016, the lowest level in over 10 years. Eight countries saw a reduction in their score (Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe) and one country posted an increase (Guinea). Erosion of external buffers meant that countries had reduced flexibility to use policies to absorb external shocks. In this challenging policy environment, the monetary and exchange rate policy response in some countries was not consistent with economic stability and sustained medium-term growth. Current account deficits stabilized across the region in 2016, but remained elevated. At the same time, cross-border flows to the region fell, especially foreign direct investment and bond issuance. High current account deficits across much of the region and declining capital flows put downward pressure on exchange rates and international reserves. The number of countries with a decline in reserves of over 20 percent was sharply higher (figure A.3A). Overall, liquidity buffers have been eroding in recent years, indicating the need to rebuild these buffers. Regional inflation ticked up, as several commodity exporters saw large currency depreciations and food prices rose in countries affected by drought (figure A.3B). Although rising inflation often prompted Table A.1. Changes in the Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2016 Monetary and Debt policy and Change in scores Fiscal policy exchange rate policies management Ethiopia, Mauritania, Ghana and São Tomé and Increases Guinea and Sudan Príncipe Burundi, Democratic Republic Benin, Democratic Republic Cabo Verde, Central African of Congo, Republic of Congo, of Congo, Republic of Congo, Republic, Chad, Republic of Decreases Maurtiania, Mozambique, Ghana, Mozambique, Niger, Congo, Mozambique, South Nigeria, South Sudan, and Nigeria, South Sudan, and Sudan, and Uganda Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Source: CPIA database. 13 a tightening of monetary FIGURE A.3A Variation in International Reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2012-16 policy, interest rates remained The number of 100 negative in real terms. countries with 90 a decline in In Nigeria, the currency 80 reserves of over 20 percent was 70 was partially liberalized in Percent of countries sharply higher 60 June 2016 amid a widening in 2016. 50 spread between the official 40 and parallel market rates 30 and declining reserves. 20 Abandoning the peg lowered 10 the value of the naira from 197 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 to the U.S. dollar to 282. The Decline in reserves of more than 20% Decline in reserves of up to 20% Central Bank subsequently Increase in reserves of upto 20% Increase in reserves of more than 20% fixed the interbank exchange Source: World Development Indicators, 2017 rate at 305 in September, and imposed multiple forex FIGURE A.3B Inflation: Selected Countries 25 allocation/utilization rules. Regional inflation ticked Although the restrictive foreign 20 up, as several exchange policy reduced Year-on-year (%) commodity imports, it continued to create 15 exporters saw large currency shortages and segmentation 10 depreciations in the forex exchange market and food 5 and distortions in the real prices rose in countries economy. Uncertainties in the affected by 0 2014M01 2014M07 2015M01 2015M07 2016M01 2016M07 2017M01 policy environment dampened drought. Sub-Saharan Africa Ghana Nigeria investor confidence, and gross Mozambique Zambia Kenya Uganda investment inflows declined by Source: Bloomberg, Haver Analytics, World Bank. 47 percent in 2016, reaching an all-time low since records began. Monetary policy remained accommodative, with reserve money rising by one-third, driven by Central Bank financing of the budget deficit. Inflation rose to nearly 19 percent by January 2017, fueled by a combination of factors, including a depreciated currency, accommodative monetary policy, increase in fuel price, and higher power tariffs. Deep currency depreciation contributed to rising inflation in Mozambique. The 37 percent decline in the value of the metical against the U.S. dollar in 2016 was underpinned by declining exports, lower investment, and decreasing confidence. Investment inflows, which had slowed on the back of low commodity prices, contracted further following the revelation of previously undisclosed debt. Debt developments generated uncertainty about the state of the country’s public finances, prompting foreign investors to hold off investment and external credit lines to the private sector and donors to halt budget support. Year-over-year inflation averaged 25 percent in October 2016, with food inflation rising to 40 percent. Regional droughts and internal political conflict also contributed to the spike in prices. To stabilize the currency and rein in inflationary pressures, the Central Bank tightened monetary policy, raising the policy interest rate by 600 basis points in October. 14 Elsewhere, South Sudan’s economic woes deepened amid conflict and political instability, greatly complicating macroeconomic management. The currency depreciated sharply in the parallel market—from 18.5 South Sudanese pounds (SSP) to the U.S. dollar in December 2015 to 90 SSP per dollar in December 2016 and 150 SSP per dollar by mid-June 2017—and inflation accelerated by 334 percent from May 2016 to May 2017. In Burundi, restrictions on foreign exchange transactions limited the depreciation of the official exchange rate (to about 5 percent) and inflation remained moderate. But the wedge between the official and parallel market rates jumped to 60 percent in 2016, compared with 25 percent in 2015. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the current account deficit deteriorated sharply, reducing foreign currency reserves to less than one month of imports of goods and services, from nearly six weeks at end-2015. The currency depreciated by nearly 10 percent in 2016, and inflation climbed to an average of 5.7 percent, well above the 1.3 percent level in 2015. After remaining at 2 percent for four years, the Central Bank raised the policy interest rate to 7 percent in September, and further tightened monetary policy in early 2017. Among positive developments, Guinea successfully completed an International Monetary Fund (IMF) Extended Credit Facility Program, for the first time in the country’s history. The completion of the program marks an important achievement for the country, which is recovering from the Ebola crisis, and has contributed to better macroeconomic management and economic performance.. Fiscal Policy This component assesses the stabilization and resource allocation aspects of fiscal policy. Fiscal policy adjustment to a less favorable economic landscape has been inadequate, especially in commodity exporters, but also in nonresource-rich countries. Fiscal buffers continued to erode in 2016 amid mounting fiscal pressures and weak implementation of policies. Low commodity prices and weak economic growth translated into revenue shortfalls in several countries. In some cases, a slowdown in fiscal consolidation efforts contributed to expenditure overruns, deepening budgetary challenges. Sizable exchange rate depreciations raised debt service costs, heightening fiscal pressures in a few countries. Strong public investment spending, especially in non-resource-abundant countries, added to fiscal imbalances. Fiscal outcomes in 2016 were weaker than in recent years, and less favorable compared with the pre-global financial crisis period (figure A.4). The median size of the fiscal deficit in IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is around 5.0 percent of GDP. Although the resilient group of countries and other countries have seen a deterioration in fiscal balances, the gap in performance between resilient and other countries is substantial, with the deficit being larger by more than 1.5 percent of Fiscal Deficit in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014–16 FIGURE A.4 GDP in the latter group. 0.0 Countries across the Continued slippage in -1.0 region saw a the quality of fiscal policy -2.0 deterioration % of GDP, median in 2016 pulled down the in fiscal -3.0 outcomes in regional score for this 2016. The component of the CPIA to -4.0 median size 3.0. The region has seen a of the fiscal -5.0 deficit in IDA 0.4-point cumulative erosion -6.0 countries in in the fiscal policy score Sub-Saharan SSA IDA Resilient Other countries since 2011. Nine countries, Africa is countries countries in SSA around 5.0 or nearly one-fourth of IDA percent of 2014 2015 2016e borrowers, experienced GDP. Source: World Economic Outlook database, 2017. weaker performance in 15 this policy area: Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe. A good many of these countries are fragile or resource-rich. Notwithstanding the downward trend, a smaller number of countries (Ethiopia, Mauritania, and Sudan) posted gains in the quality of fiscal policy. For example, Ethiopia strengthened revenue mobilization and kept deficits low despite large spending for drought-related relief; Mauritania successfully lowered the budget deficit through tighter fiscal policy; and Sudan undertook fiscal reforms, including phasing out subsidies on petroleum products and electricity. Fiscal policy challenges deepened in several countries. In South Sudan, conflict, weak implementation capacity, and poor performance of the oil sector severely affected the fiscal policy stance. Fiscal revenues remained depressed amid low prices and declining production of oil, and underperformance of non-oil revenues due to challenges with tax collection. This combined with increased operational and capital expenditures and subsidies to the national oil company, along with spending on salaries, widened the fiscal deficit. The fiscal deficit is estimated at around 14 percent of GDP in FY16/17 and 13 percent in 2015/16, well above the 3.3 percent in FY13/14, financed mainly by the Central Bank of South Sudan. Elsewhere, Zimbabwe’s fiscal position deteriorated in 2016, as fiscal austerity measures were reversed. The general decline in economic activity in the country led to underperformance of revenues, by about 10 percent of what was initially budgeted. At the same time, actual expenditures increased beyond budget allocations. The fiscal deficit widened to nearly 10 percent of GDP, and the government borrowed heavily in the domestic market using treasury bills. The fiscal imbalance continued to deteriorate in the Republic of Congo, as weak oil prices sharply lowered revenues. Lack of funding affected ongoing public investments, and resulted in a sizable buildup of domestic arrears. But the wage bill continued to grow, and its size relative to GDP was double that in 2013. Despite a substantial scaling back of capital spending, the fiscal deficit reached an estimated 17 percent of GDP in 2016. Fiscal adjustment is needed to help restore macroeconomic stabilization and promote sustainable growth. Revenues were also pulled down by low commodity prices and declining mining and oil production in the Democratic Republic of Congo. With the contribution of the mining sector to domestic revenue remaining below potential, the contribution from the value-added tax yet to reach the anticipated level, and a relatively high share of recurrent spending in total expenditures, fiscal consolidation efforts focused on reducing spending on infrastructure, to around 2 percent of GDP. The low share of capital spending on infrastructure raises concerns for growth in the medium term, and reflects limited policy space to absorb aggregate demand shocks. Ghana saw substantial fiscal slippage in 2016, and the country missed fiscal targets on its IMF–supported program by a large margin. Expenditure overruns ahead of elections, coupled with revenue shortfalls, widened the fiscal deficit (on a cash basis) by more than 3 percent of GDP above the programmed level of 5.3 percent of GDP. The accumulation of new arrears and financial deficits of state-owned enterprises in the energy sector further compounded the fiscal difficulties facing the country. Given the relatively large size of public debt, the higher fiscal deficit increases the vulnerability to exchange rate, rollover, and liquidity risks. In Mozambique, the revelation of previously undisclosed borrowing by state-owned enterprises heightened fiscal risks. The contingent liabilities stemming from this borrowing deteriorated the country’s debt position. The disclosure of $1.4 billion in external debt led to a suspension of the country’s IMF program and budget support by donors; these sources financed about 6 percent of the budget over the past three years. The depreciation of the currency and a larger stock of debt increased debt service obligations. In October 2016, the country announced that it would seek debt restructuring from its private creditors, as it lacked the capacity to pay (in January 2017 it defaulted on a coupon payment on its sovereign bond). 16 Debt Policy This component assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensure medium-term debt sustainability and minimize budgetary risks. It covers (i) the extent to which external and domestic debt is contracted with a view to achieving/maintaining debt sustainability; and (ii) the effectiveness of debt management functions. Debt conditions have become more challenging, as public debt in Sub-Saharan Africa has continued to rise amid large and widening fiscal deficits and weak economic growth. Public debt-to-GDP was 48 percent (median value) in 2016 for IDA countries in the region, more than 10 percentage points above the 2014 level (figure A.5). There is considerable variation in performance across countries. For example, the bottom quartile of countries had public debt-to-GDP ratios below 32 percent, and this ratio exceeded 70 percent for countries in the top quartile. Resilient countries typically have lower public debt-to-GDP ratios than other countries. Some countries have seen a more rapid rise in debt ratios. For example, 14 countries saw a 10-percentage point rise in this ratio during 2014–16, and six of these countries saw increases of 20 percentage points or more. Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP) FIGURE A.5 Public debt- 140 130 to-GDP was 120 48 percent 2014 2016e 110 (median value) in 2016 for Debt-to-GDP ratio (%) 100 90 IDA countries 80 in the region, 70 more than 10 60 percentage 50 points above 40 the 2014 level. 30 20 10 Senegal Kenya Tanzania Ethiopia Côte d'Ivoire Rwanda Mali Eritrea Cabo Verde Gambia, The Mauritania Ghana Togo Sudan Mozambique Zimbabwe Central African Rep. Guinea-Bissau Lesotho Congo, Rep. São Tomé and Principe Guinea Chad Madagascar Liberia Zambia Niger Uganda Burkina Faso Burundi Benin Cameroon Comoros Sierra Leone Congo, Dem. Rep. Malawi Nigeria Resilient countries in SSA Other countries in SSA Source: World Economic database, 2017. The results of the latest IMF-World Bank Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) suggest that several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are caught in an environment of low growth prospects, widened fiscal deficits, weaker currencies, and lower export revenues, and could face problems in repaying their debt. Figure A.6 shows that of the 35 low- and middle-income countries in the region with a DSA, the number of countries at low risk of debt distress halved to six, or less than 20 percent, during 2014–16. In tandem, there has been an uptick in the number of countries that are considered at “moderate” and “high” risk of debt distress. A few countries with deteriorating debt dynamics, such as Mozambique and the Republic of Congo, have received credit rating downgrades, which signal higher borrowing costs for these countries. 17 In an environment with FIGURE A.6 Evolution of the Risk of Debt Stress: Low-Income Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa tightening global financial The number conditions, many countries 35 of low- and middle-income 9 7 7 9 in the region face the 30 12 11 11 countries at 14 challenge of undertaking 17 17 low risk of 25 18 their much-needed Number of countries debt distress fell from 12 20 13 16 16 development spending 10 11 to 6 during 19 without jeopardizing 2014–16. 15 11 18 8 debt sustainability. This 11 10 12 will require pursuing 13 13 13 12 12 sound monetary and 5 10 10 7 7 6 5 fiscal policies to ensure 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 macroeconomic stability, as well as developing local High Moderate Low currency bond markets to reduce dependence Source: IMF/World Bank DSA database, June 2017. on external funding and exposure to exchange rate risk. As these markets deepen, longer maturities and fixed rates for public debt issuance will reduce the exposure to interest rate fluctuations. The capacity of debt management organizations across countries requires upgrading as well. The regional average score for debt policy and management declined to 3.2, a level last seen in 2010. The weaker score reflects rising vulnerabilities to export, growth, and foreign exchange shocks. The quality of debt policy and management deteriorated in seven countries: Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Mozambique, South Sudan, and Uganda. In many of the countries, rising domestic public debt combined with a very low export base continued to weigh on debt vulnerability. Signs of significant accumulation of domestic arrears and growing delays in the payment of current expenditures, including salary payments, contributed to the weakening of the debt policy score in some countries. Two countries (Ghana and São Tomé and Príncipe) registered an improvement in the overall score, on an upgrading of debt management. As part of its stabilization program, Ghana began preparing a Medium- Term Debt Strategy, concurrently with the budget in 2016, and debt indicators have been incorporated in determining fiscal rules going forward. Debt management has now become an integral part of the macroeconomic framework, and not a residual policy. The increase in the score for São Tomé and Príncipe reflects progress in key areas of debt management practices. Although the country remains at high risk of debt distress, a recent evaluation of its debt management practices finds that debt management and fiscal and monetary policies are coordinated most of the time. The Debt Management Office (DMO) provides timely debt service projections to the Budget Office, and a common set of official economic projections underpins budget and debt projections. The Central Bank informs market participants of debt that is issued for fiscal purposes and that for monetary policy purposes. The DMO has been in place for more than five years. It keeps adequate records (physical and electronic) of all loan and guarantee contracts, although backup arrangements could be improved. Reliable, comprehensive debt data are available in a timely manner. Quarterly debt reports, including all loans and some arrears to suppliers, are made available online and included in the budget and state general account documents. 18 CLUSTER B: STRUCTURAL POLICIES Cluster B of the CPIA covers policies affecting trade, the financial sector, and the business environment. The regional average score for cluster B was unchanged at 3.2 in 2016, although weaker financial sector performance in several countries pulled down the score of this component of structural policies. Trade The trade component score, which assesses a country’s trade policy regime and trade facilitation, edged slightly lower. Except for one country, Zimbabwe, for which the score declined, there were no changes in the overall CPIA trade score for other IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa between 2015 and 2016. Looking at the two categories that comprise the overall score, only three of the 38 countries registered a small increase in the score for trade facilitation. This suggests that the pace of trade reform in Africa has stagnated. One of the key elements that affects the score for trade policy is the external tariff. The average external tariff across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa barely changed, from 12.46 percent in 2005 to 11.54 percent in 2015 (weighted by the total imports of each country, the average was 8.29 percent in 2005 and 8.11 percent in 2015). The average tariff in Sub-Saharan Africa remains considerably higher than the average tariff of 7.9 percent in East Asia, the region that has developed fastest over the past two decades. There has been more of a change in the applied external tariff, which accounts for the preferences that countries grant to trade partners in free trade areas and customs unions. The average applied tariff in Africa declined from 12.26 percent in 2005 to 10.14 percent in 2015. The decline reflects the increasing number of countries (more fully) participating in free trade areas, such as the Southern African Development Community. Many countries in Africa are members of a customs union, so the scope for individual countries, especially small countries, to determine their external tariff is limited. Nevertheless, for many customs unions in Africa, it may be opportune to review the level of the external tariff to enhance integration into the global economy, and as efforts intensify to enhance regional free trade through the Tripartite Free Trade Area and Continental Free Trade Area. From an economic perspective, there is risk that removing tariffs against some trading partners while maintaining relatively high tariffs against others increases distortions in the economy and may reduce welfare. A first step would be careful analysis of the implications of reducing external tariffs for domestic producers that compete with imports, producers that use imported inputs and capital goods, and companies seeking to integrate into global value chains, as well as for consumers and government revenues. Another key element of the CPIA score for trade policy relates to nontariff barriers, such as those arising from the application of regulatory measures that impose heavier costs on traded goods than on those sold domestically. Here the information is much more difficult to obtain than that on tariffs. However, the available evidence suggests that nontariff barriers are often more restrictive than tariffs, and are typically significant barriers to trade and value chain development. Many countries in Africa 19 are working to reduce nontariff barriers, individually and through their regional communities. Unlike tariff reform, removing nontariff barriers often requires regulatory reform and building the capacity of regulatory agencies.3 A key indicator used to define the subscore for trade facilitation is the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). Here again, there has only been limited improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa over the past 10 years, with the overall score increasing from 2.25 in 2007 to 2.47 in 2016. In contrast, the East Asia region has seen substantial improvement in the LPI, from 2.66 in 2007 to 3.14 in 2016. The quality of trade logistics is a key determinant of the costs and timeliness of trade, which in turn affect the competitiveness of traded goods and the attractiveness to investments in trade-related activities, such as those related to global value chains. Africa has clearly fallen back in logistics performance relative to a key competitor region. FIGURE B.1 Trading across Borders: Distance to the Frontier for Selected Countries and Regions, 2016 Among Sub- 100 Trading across borders DFT ( 0 to 100, 100 max) Saharan Africa’s IDA countries, 90 only three 80 are ranked in 70 the top half 60 of the global 50 distribution 40 of the trading 30 across borders 20 indicator, with 18 countries 10 in the bottom 0 Congo, Dem. Rep. Cameroon Liberia Sudan Congo, Rep. Nigeria Tanzania Sierra Leone Guinea Zambia Burundi Ghana Guinea-Bissau Zimbabwe Central African Republic Mauritania Uganda Benin Niger Senegal Madagascar Malawi Togo Cabo Verde Gambia, The Comoros Mozambique Kenya Burkina Faso Mali Rwanda Lesotho Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia East Asia & Paci c Latin America & Caribbean quintile. Source: Doing Business Indicators, 2017. Note: Blue bars indicate fragile countries. DTF= distance to the frontier. The Trading Across Borders indicator of Doing Business shows that African countries lag the best global performers (as measured by distance to the frontier) (figure B.1). Moreover, only three of the 38 IDA countries in the region are ranked in the top half of the global distribution of this indicator across 190 countries, with 18 countries in the bottom quintile, that is, with a rank of 152 or lower. There have been a few successes, such as Lesotho and Rwanda, which are ranked 39 and 89, respectively, in the 2017 Doing Business exercise for Trading Across Borders. The region’s weak performance reflects the cost of domestic logistical procedures, such as on border and documentary compliance of exporting and importing (figure B.2), as well as high domestic transportation costs. For most of the African countries, there is still enormous scope and need for improvements in the time and cost to import and export. 3 These are issues that can be discussed with the World Bank as part of the dialogue on trade, and addressed through the available World Bank instruments for analysis, technical assistance, and lending operations. 20 Countries in Africa are actively pursuing strategies Cost of Domestic Logistical Processes of Exporting and Importing FIGURE B.2 ($ per container) to industrialize and diversify The region Cost to export exhibits weak their economies to provide a performance 710 broader base for job creation Cost to export (US$ per container) on the cost 610 and poverty reduction. of domestic 510 logistical Deeper regional and global 410 procedures. integration will be important 310 aspects of the implementation 210 of these strategies and a 110 key element in defining the 10 Europe & South Asia East Asia & Middle East & Latin America Sub-Saharan incentives for domestic and Central Asia Paci c North Africa & Caribbean Africa foreign investment in tradable Cost to export: Border compliance (US$) Cost to export: Documentary compliance (US$) activities. The CPIA scores suggest that there has been Cost to import 810 Cost to import (US$ per container) very little progress on trade 610 policy and trade facilitation in 410 Africa in recent years, and there 210 is a need to push ahead with 10 reforms in these areas to avoid South Asia Europe & Middle East & Latin America Sub-Saharan East Asia & falling further behind other Central Asia North Africa & Caribbean Africa Paci c developing and competitor Cost to import: Border compliance (US$) Cost to import: Documentary compliance (US$) regions. Source: Doing Business Indicators, 2017. Financial Sector The financial sector component measures policies and regulations that affect financial stability, efficiency, and access. The region’s average score for this component slipped to 2.8 in 2016. Eight of the region’s 38 IDA countries saw deterioration in policy and regulatory quality of the financial sector. The decline largely reflected weaker performance around financial stability. The pullback in the overall regional score is not mirrored in other IDA countries (figure B.3). Most countries have preserved Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2016 FIGURE B.3 financial stability, but risks have 3.4 Eight countries significantly increased. Credit saw a risks started to deteriorate in 3.2 deterioration Financial sector score, 2016 3.0 3.0 in the policy 2015 across banking systems, 3.0 2.9 and regulatory following the worsening of the 2.8 2.8 quality of the 2.7 macroeconomic environment, 2.6 2.5 financial sector, pulling down poor policy response in several 2.4 the regional countries, and excesses in the score to 2.8. 2.2 previous period of rapid growth. 2.0 Nonperforming loans increased SSA IDA Overall IDA Fragile Fragile Non-fragile Non-fragile by 50 percent and sometimes average excluding SSA countries countries SSA excluding in SSA excluding SSA countries SSA countries doubled in many countries Source: CPIA database. (in 2016), often starting from 21 fairly high levels. Significant delays were sometimes observed, particularly in 2016, on payments to government contractors (with small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) being particularly affected) and, in a few cases, to civil servants. Capital buffers have generally been allowed to absorb the shock so far, but individual bank failures were observed (often reflecting poor governance practices and inadequate supervision in the earlier boom period). In several small and fragile countries, banking systems are distressed, affecting future recovery prospects. Countries continue to implement efforts to strengthen prudential regimes, introduce risk-based supervision, and improve enforcement of prudential standards. Recent episodes of individual bank failures highlighted remaining weaknesses (and difficulties in minimizing bank resolution costs). Increased attention is being paid to strengthening cross-border banking supervision to address pan-African banking groups, which are dominant and systemic actors across the continent. Resolution regimes are being strengthened in the largest countries, but most jurisdictions do not yet have an adequate framework to respond flexibly to banking crises. An increasing number of African regulators are including mobile money in their supervisory approach and deposit insurance schemes. There was an apparent acceleration of financial deepening in 2015, which was later reversed in several jurisdictions in 2016 (the median ratio of banking assets to GDP increased from 38 percent in 2014 to 45 percent in 2015, and declined to 43 percent in 2016). Banks’ exposure to the sovereign increased significantly, primarily through the acquisition of government securities, but also through direct lending to governments, their agencies, as well as state-owned enterprises. Crowding out of the private sector is observed in multiple countries. Many financial systems started experiencing significant liquidity pressures, particularly in access to foreign currency liquidity. Profitability generally remained robust in 2015, with some declines observed in 2016 as the cost of risk started to increase significantly and activity slowed (for example, international transactions). In an often-adverse macroeconomic environment, efforts to develop local capital markets are increasing (in a context of rapidly increasing issuance of domestic government bills and bonds and reduced access to international capital markets). Improvements in financial inclusion, especially digital financial inclusion, continue to be observed across the continent. Innovations are particularly vibrant in the mobile money space, with a growing number of services offered (including credit and insurance). Recent studies on fintech innovations paint a glowing picture of potential growth in digital financial services, due to rapidly growing mobile penetration and smartphone ownership, a lack of constraints from traditional legacy banking systems, and a growing population with a strong entrepreneurial spirit. Financial infrastructure is being strengthened across the region (particularly in credit information and movable collateral). Business Regulatory Framework The business regulatory environment component of the CPIA assesses the extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private businesses in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. The three subcomponents measured are (i) regulations affecting entry, exit, and competition; (ii) regulations of ongoing business operations; and (iii) regulations of factor markets (labor and land). The regional average score for the business regulatory environment in 2016 remained unchanged at 3.1, and compares favorably with that of other IDA countries (figure B.4). The region’s resilient countries have a better business environment than other countries in the region, and non-fragile countries maintain a 22 sizable gap over fragile countries. Fourteen of the 38 IDA countries Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2016 FIGURE B.4 4.0 The quality of in Sub-Saharan Africa have a score 3.5 3.4 the business of 3.5 or higher. Top regional 3.5 3.1 3.1 regulatory 3.1 performers, such as Rwanda, 3.0 environment 2.7 compares Ghana, and Uganda, have scores 2.5 favorably with of 4.0 or higher in 2016. Several 2.0 that of other IDA countries. fragile countries, including the 1.5 Central African Republic, Chad, 1.0 Eritrea, the Republic of Congo, Overall IDA SSA IDA Fragile Non-fragile Resilient Other countries average countries countries countries countries Guinea Bissau, South Sudan, average in SSA in SSA in SSA in SSA and Zimbabwe, continued to Source: CPIA database. experience a weak business regulatory environment, which kept scores low (below 2.5). Two countries (Lesotho and Madagascar) recorded a gain in their overall score for the business regulatory environment in 2016, but twice as many countries registered a decline (Benin, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Senegal). The higher score for Lesotho is underpinned by improvements in dealing with construction permits and protecting minority investors. The country’s global ranking in the 2017 Doing Business indicator improved 12 points, from 112 to 100, and its distance to the frontier score rose from 57 to 61. Similarly, Madagascar saw increases in its overall ranking and distance to the frontier score. The country made it easier to start a business by reducing the number of procedures and hours (from 13 to 11) needed to register a company, much lower than the Sub-Saharan Africa average of 27 hours. According to the 2017 Doing Business report, over one-quarter of all reforms (28 percent of 280 total reforms) in the review period were in Sub-Saharan Africa. Eighty reforms were adopted, across 37 countries in the region, representing a pickup in the pace of reforms. Over half of the reforms were implemented by the 17 members of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA).4 The region’s economies reformed most in the areas of resolving insolvency (with 18 reforms) and starting a business (15). For example, Nigeria and Rwanda made starting a business easier by introducing or improving online portals. Elsewhere, as part of the OHADA reform agenda, Cameroon introduced a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties, making it easier to resolve insolvency by allowing additional outlets to settle debts. For the second time in a row, Kenya was among the top 10 improvers in the world. The country implemented reforms in five Doing Business areas. For example, starting a business was made easier by removing the stamp duty fees required for nominal capital, memorandums, and articles of association, and eliminating the requirement to sign the compliance declaration before a commissioner of oaths; and in the area of resolving insolvency, a reorganization procedure and regulations for insolvency practitioners were introduced. The country also streamlined the process for getting electricity, reducing the time for grid connection by almost two weeks. 4 The 17 OHADA countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Republic of Congo, Senegal, and Togo. 23 Although several of the region’s countries have made notable progress in reforming their business environment, improvements in distance to the frontier are slow (figure B.5). More than half of all IDA countries in the region have a distance to the frontier score of 50 or less, and fewer than one-third have seen a five-point or larger gain in this score between 2012 and 2017. FIGURE B.5 Overall Doing Business: Distance to the Frontier Score in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2017 Compared with 2012 More than 80 half of all IDA 70 countries in Sub-Saharan 60 Africa have a 50 distance to the 40 frontier score of 50 or less, and 30 fewer than one- 20 third have seen 10 a five-point Eritrea Central African Republic Congo, Dem. Rep. Chad Congo, Rep. Liberia Guinea-Bissau Nigeria Sudan Madagascar Cameroon Gabon Guinea Zimbabwe Mauritania Ethiopia Burundi Benin Togo Comoros Niger Sierra Leone Senegal Burkina Faso Gambia, The Côte d’Ivoire Mali Mozambique Malawi Tanzania Cabo Verde Uganda Ghana Lesotho Zambia Kenya Rwanda or larger gain in this score between 2012 and 2017. 2017 2012 Source: Doing Business indicators, 2017. CLUSTER C: POLICIES FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION AND EQUITY A wide range of policy areas, such as gender equality, equity of public resource use, human development, social protection, and environmental sustainability, are covered under this cluster. The regional score for cluster C was 3.2 in 2016, continuing the flat trend observed since 2010. Gender Equality The gender equality component assesses the extent to which a country has enacted and put in place institutions and programs to enforce laws and policies that promote equal access for men and women to human capital development and productive and economic resources, and which give men and women equal status and protection under the law. At 3.2, the average score for this category has remained unchanged since 2005. This trend reflects not only the large gender inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also the difficulty of changing norms about gender. The CPIA score for Sub-Saharan Africa is lower than the global average for IDA countries. This may partly be explained by the higher level of fragility in the region. For example, of 30 IDA and IDA/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development blend countries that the World Bank listed as being fragile situations in FY17, 19 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. These fragile countries perform poorly across all the subsections of the gender equality component of the CPIA: seven of the 10 countries in the region with the lowest overall scores for this component are classified as being fragile situations, compared with only three of the 10 best performing countries. This is not surprising, as fragility negatively affects every aspect of women’s lives, including access to services that are essential for basic human development, economic opportunities, 24 and protection from violence and other legal violations. There is a particularly high level of fragility in West and Central Africa, which is also reflected in the CPIA scores on gender. Eight of the 10 worst performing countries are in West or Central Africa: Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Guinea. The 10 best performing countries include three countries in East Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda), three in West Africa (Senegal, Ghana, and Cabo Verde), and four in Southern Africa (Namibia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and Madagascar). The average performance on the human development aspects of gender equality continues to be lower than performance on the economic opportunity and legal protection aspects. This indicates that there is still an urgent need for countries in the region to make more progress improving access to basic services for women and girls, including services that support reproductive health, family planning, and equal access to education for boys and girls. While these human development gaps have tended to be the focus of most research on gender, there is a growing evidence base on the factors underlying gaps in economic empowerment and the types of interventions that can close these gaps. The economic empowerment gaps are especially important in Sub-Saharan Africa, given the small size of formal wage markets and the predominance of self- employment, including in agriculture. Box C.1 summarizes some of the emerging evidence in this area. Research from the World Bank’s Africa Gender Innovation Lab (GIL) suggests that occupational sex BOX C.1 segregation is an important factor behind earnings gaps between women and men. Studies in Uganda Emerging and Ethiopia indicate that access to information and having a male mentor may play important roles in Evidence on Gender Gaps allowing women to cross into the more profitable and more highly remunerated sectors that tend to be in Economic dominated by men. Opportunity It has long been recognized that legal discrimination in property and inheritance rights negatively affects women’s ability to find the collateral required for business loans. Innovative approaches to easing this constraint are being tested by researchers. For example, in the Women Entrepreneurship Development Project in Ethiopia, GIL is testing the impact of using a short psychometric test that predicts the likelihood that an entrepreneur will repay a loan. If the loan applicant achieves a high enough score on the test, she gets the loan, with no need for any collateral. So far, the repayment rate is over 99 percent. In the agriculture sector, joint GIL and Development Research Group research across six countries in the region revealed large gaps in productivity between women and men farmers, ranging from 24 percent in Ethiopia to 66 percent in Niger (figure BC.1.1). These gaps are explained by women’s lower access to a variety of productive inputs and lower returns to the use of those inputs, with farm labor being an especially significant constraint. This evidence suggests that providing women with financing to hire farm labor, adopt labor-saving technology, and use community-based childcare could help close the productivity gap, increasing rural incomes and food security. Across agriculture and nonagricultural self-employment, emerging evidence from World Bank researchers and outside academics, including Michael Frese, suggests that noncognitive skills, such as personal initiative, may be particularly important for closing gender gaps in performance. In Malawi, analysis of household survey data suggests that women’s noncognitive skills are associated with their adoption of a key export crop. Future impact evaluation work will test whether low-cost psychological interventions can equip women farmers with these skills. In Togo, the preliminary results of a randomized control trial indicate that personal initiative training is more effective than traditional managerial training in increasing firm profits, especially for women entrepreneurs. 25 BOX C.1 FIGURE BC.1.1 Gender Gaps in Agriculture Productivity, by Country Continued a. Simple difference b. Difference after accounting for plot size and regions Ethiopia 23% *** Ethiopia 24% *** Malawi 25% *** Malawi 25% *** Niger 19% *** Niger 66% *** North 4% North 46% *** Nigeria Nigeria South 24% * South 17% Tanzania 6% Tanzania 23% *** Uganda 13% *** Uganda 33% *** 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Note: The symbols * / ** / *** denote statical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels respectively. Sources: Salman Alibhai, Niklas Buehren, Sreelakshmi Papineni, and Rachael Pierotti, “Crossovers: Female Entrepreneurs Who Enter Male Sectors: Evidence from Ethiopia.” Policy Research Working Paper 8065, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017 Francisco Moraes Leitao Campo, Markus P. Goldstein, Laura Mcgorman, Ana Maria Munoz Boudet, and Obert Pimhidzai, “Breaking the Metal Ceiling: Female Entrepreneurs Who Succeed in Male-Dominated Sectors.” Policy Research Working Paper 7503, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015. World Bank and ONE, Levelling the Field: Improving Opportunities for Women Farmers in Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014. M. Goldstein, T. Kilic, and J. Montalvao, “Female Non-Cognitive Skills and Cash Crop Adoption: Evidence from Rural Malawi, 2015, https://editorialexpress.com/ cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=CSAE2016&paper_id=1077. Francisco Campos, Michael Frese, Markus Goldstein, Leonardo Iacovone, Hillary Johnson, David McKenzie, and Mona Mensmann (forthcoming). “Teaching Personal Initiative Beats Traditional Business Training in Boosting Small Business Growth,” World Bank, forthcoming. Equity of Public Resource Use The equity of public resource use component of the CPIA assesses the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. Organized into three subcomponents, equity of public resource use gives snapshots of (i) available poverty measurement tools and monitoring systems, covering the extent to which poverty measurement, monitoring, and evaluation instruments exist, and the degree to which poverty-related information is made publicly available; (ii) government priorities and strategies, particularly those related to poor and vulnerable groups; and (iii) revenue collection, covering the incidence of major taxes, for example, whether they are progressive or regressive. The regional average score for FIGURE C.1 Average CPIA Scores for Equity of Public Resource Use, the overall category is relatively by Country Group, 2016 The gap unchanged, at 3.3 in 2016; the in scores 4.0 3.8 average for fragile countries is 2.9, Equity of public resource use score, 2016 between 3.6 fragile and 3.5 3.3 3.2 and that for non-fragile countries non-fragile 3.0 2.9 is 3.6. As illustrated in figure C.1, country groups remains large the gap in scores between country 2.5 for equity groups is large, including between of public 2.0 resilient and other countries. resource use. 1.5 With few countries recording 1.0 changes, the regional average SSA IDA Fragile Non-fragile Resilient Other average countries countries countries countries score for the overall category in SSA in SSA in SSA in SSA remained relatively unchanged Source: CPIA database. between 2015 and 2016 26 (figure C.2). The average score weakened in Burundi and Ghana. The slippage in the score for Burundi reflects lags in data production and analysis. The paucity of robust data hampers the measurement of poverty in Burundi. The slippage in Ghana is attributable to the introduction of several regressive taxes in 2015 that continued in 2016. Equity of Public Resource Use CPIA Scores, by Country, 2016 FIGURE C.2 5.0 Few countries 4.0 recorded Equity of public resource use score, 2016 changes in 3.0 the score 2.0 on equity in public 1.0 resource use 0.0 in 2016. Burundi Congo, Dem. Rep. Liberia Mali Sierra Leone Togo Côte d'Ivoire Gambia, The Zimbabwe Chad Comoros Eritrea Sudan Central African Republic Guinea-Bissau South Sudan Congo, Rep. Mozambique Madagascar Rwanda Burkina Faso Ethiopia Kenya Mauritania Niger Tanzania Uganda Benin Cabo Verde Malawi Nigeria Senegal Zambia Cameroon Ghana Guinea Lesotho São Tomé and Príncipe Fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA 2015 2016 Average 2016 Source: CPIA database. Statistical capacity describes a Statistical Capacity Score and Poverty Measurement Component, 2016 FIGURE C.3 country’s ability to collect, analyze, 5.0 There is and disseminate high-quality data R2 = 0.4099 4.5 a positive about its population and economy. Score (measurement component correlation 4.0 of equity of resource use) Good quality statistics are essential between 3.5 countries’ for evidence-based decision measurement 3.0 making and achieving better subcomponent 2.5 of equity development results. The CPIA 2.0 of public criteria for equity of public resource resource use 1.5 use include measurement tools and the overall 1.0 statistical and availability of poverty data. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 capacity score. Empirical analysis shows that there Statistical capacity score (overall average) is a positive correlation between Source: CPIA database and World Development Indicators, 2017. the measurement subcomponent Note: the Statistical Capacity Indicator provides an overview of the statistical capacity of developing countries. It is based on a diagnostic framework that was developed to assess the capacity of statistical systems. The framework consists of three assessment areas: methodology, data sources, and the overall statistical capacity and periodicity and timeliness (institutional framework has not been included in the calculation of the score). Countries are scored against specific criteria in these areas, using input provided by countries score for the country (figure C.3). and/or publicly available. Building Human Resources The human development component of the CPIA assesses the quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education. The human development CPIA score for Sub-Saharan Africa increased in 2016 to a score of 3.6, from 3.5 in 2015, continuing the upward trend that has been evident since 2010. There continues to be a sizable gap in this score between resource-rich countries (score 3.5) and non-resource-rich countries (score 3.7), and between fragile countries (score 3.3) and non-fragile countries (score 3.8). 27 Health The evolution of the average score for the health component exhibits a flat trend between 2015 and 2016. The average CPIA score for the health component among the 38 IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is 3.4. Of these countries, 30 (79 percent) have the same score in 2016 as in 2015, five (13 percent) have higher scores, and three (8 percent) have lower scores. The distribution of the health FIGURE C.4 Distribution of the CPIA Score for Health, 2015 and 2016 CPIA score shows that about a For health, 17 third of countries have scores more than half the countries of 3 or less, roughly a quarter have a CPIA 13 have scores of 4 or more, and Number of countries score of 3.5 or higher. the remaining have a score at 9 the median value of 3.5. There were no changes in the number 5 of countries scoring at the lower end, but fewer countries 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 achieved the highest score in 2015 2016 2016, compared with 2015, and Source: CPIA database. more countries obtained scores of 3.5 and 4.0. Among the countries with improving scores for health in 2016 were Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea- Bissau, Liberia, and Mauritania. The three countries where the scores for health weakened in 2016 were the Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Eritrea. Figure C.5 shows a positive, albeit weak, correlation between the CPIA ratings and various measures of national income and health financing. The correlation is especially weak for gross national income per capita and health spending as a percentage of government spending, where the R-squared is around 5 percent. The relationship seems to be a bit stronger for public spending on health as a percentage of GDP (R-squared of almost 10) and public spending on health as a percentage of total health spending (R-squared of 13). Within each CPIA rating level, there is a significant amount of variation, despite the overall upward trend. 28 Correlation between the CPIA Score for Health and GNI and Health Expenditure, 2015 FIGURE C.5 The a. GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) b. Health expenditure, public (% of GDP) correlation 3,500 9 between the 3,000 8 health CPIA 7 score and 2,500 6 income per 2,000 5 capita is weak. 1,500 R2 = 0.0535 4 R2 = 0.0991 3 1,000 2 500 1 0 0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 c. Health expenditure, public (% of total health expenditure) d. Health expenditure, public (% of government expenditure) 90 18 70 14 50 10 R2 = 0.1265 R2 = 0.0525 30 6 10 2 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Source: CPIA database and World Development Indicators, 2017. Note: GDP = gross domestic product; GNI = gross national income. By contrast, the correlations for the health outcome–related indicators seem to be much stronger, as depicted in figure C.6. The R-squared values run from 24 percent for life expectancy to 42 percent for under-five mortality. Countries that scored higher on the CPIA appear to have higher life expectancy and lower maternal, infant, and child mortality. Except for infant mortality, the range of values in each CPIA level is much smaller than it is for the economic indicators. 29 FIGURE C.6 Correlation between the CPIA Score for Health and Health Outcomes, 2015 Countries with higher a. Life expectancy at birth, total (years) b. Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) CPIA scores 80 1,600 seem to have better health 70 1,200 outcomes— R2 = 0.2405 higher life 60 800 expectancy and lower R2 = 0.2989 maternal, 50 400 infant, and child mortality. 40 0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 c. Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) d. Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 100 160 80 120 60 80 40 40 R2 = 0.4247 R2 = 0.406 20 0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Source: CPIA database and World Development Indicators, 2017. Education The score for education remained at 3.5, unchanged since 2014. Bucking this stable trend, a few countries (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Kenya) saw an improvement in scores, underpinned by improving access and the quality of learning outcomes, and efforts to improve teacher quality that have been part of the governments’ education strategy and agenda in the past years. The focus has been to improve learning outcomes. For example, in recent years, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire has implemented several initiatives to improve teacher training, including the development of a new curriculum, as well as the reorganization of the governance structure on teacher training centers. An equal number of countries experienced a slippage in this component of the CPIA (Eritrea, South Sudan, and Uganda). The unfinished agenda of ensuring universal completion of primary and lower secondary education. Improving learning levels, especially in the foundational years, is one of the top priorities of Sub-Saharan African countries. However, this must be done at the same time as ensuring universal access to and completion of primary and lower secondary education, the latter being one of the Sustainable Development Goals. The access rates at the beginning and end of the primary cycle (grades 1 and 6) and lower secondary cycle (grades 7 and 9), as measured by the gross intake ratio (GIR), indicate that although access in grade 1 tends to be high across the vast majority of countries, the access rates throughout the rest of the cycle 30 are significantly lower.5 Figure Gross Intake Ratio in Grades 1, 6, 7, and 9 in Selected Countries, FIGURE C.7 C.7 shows the GIR at grades 2000 and Most Recent Year 1, 6, 7, and 9 in 2000 and the 200 Access in grade 180 1 tends to be most recent year for eight high across countries in Sub-Saharan 160 most countries, 140 but retaining Africa. These countries are 120 children even drawn from four groups of to the end of 100 countries that are categorized primary school 80 is difficult. according to their current 60 primary gross enrollment ratio 40 and out-of-school population, 20 with group 1 representing the 0 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 9 most advanced and group 4 representing countries Botswana Ghana Cameroon Malawi Ethiopia Mozambique Burkina Faso Senegal with delayed progression 2000 Most recent year (World Bank, 2017, Better Basic Source: Calculations based on enrollment numbers from UIS.Stat and population data Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: from the United Nations Population Division. Implementing What Works). Access in grade 1 is very high, even in countries that had relatively low grade 1 GIRs in 2000, such as Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. In many countries, it is above 100 percent, reflecting the enrollment of under- age and over-age children as well as “hidden repetition,” where children who have previously attended school return to grade 1. Nevertheless, retaining children even to the end of primary school (as reflected by the GIR in grade 6) is proving difficult for most countries. Apart from countries in group 1 (of which Botswana and Ghana are examples), where the grade 6 GIR is relatively high, in all other countries, there is a sharp drop in the grade 6 GIR. Further, in most countries shown in figure C.7, the drop in the GIR between grades 1 and 6 is steeper than the drop between grades 6, 7, and 9. The cumulative effect of this loss in coverage is that, apart from the countries in group 1, the GIR in grade 9 is less than 20 percent. This means that the vast majority of young people do not complete the education level that is required to become fully engaged and active citizens and for productive participation in the labor market. Addressing gender and wealth disparities. Over two-thirds of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have a Gender Parity Index (GPI) of 0.95 or above in primary school enrollment; Niger has the lowest GPI at 0.82. However, only about half of the countries have a similar GPI at the lower secondary level. In general, apart from the group 1 countries, which have attained gender parity at the lower secondary level, most of the others have a GPI of less than 0.8. Chad and Benin have among the lowest GPIs, at 0.64 and 0.65, respectively. Girls’ participation in and completion of lower secondary education contributes to lowering fertility and increasing women’s empowerment. Many children in the primary and lower secondary age groups are currently out of school. Figure C.8 illustrates the stark wealth disparities in the out-of-school incidence in these age groups, comparing the rates for the poorest and wealthiest households. In Mali, the out-of-school rate among the poorest 5 To ensure comparisons across countries, the ratios are calculated using the primary level to mean grades 1–6, and the lower secondary level to mean grades 7–9. In practice, some countries have slightly different cycles for primary and lower secondary. 31 households was 68 percent, compared with 19 percent among the wealthiest; in Senegal, the percentages are 57 and 20, respectively. The gap between the out-of-school incidence for the poorest and wealthiest households tends to be highest among Francophone and Lusophone countries, such as Mozambique, Angola, Benin, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Chad. FIGURE C.8 Out-of-School Rate for the Poorest and Richest Quintiles for Children Ages 6–14 and 7–15 There are stark wealth Swaziland 5 0.5 disparities Gabon 7 2.6 in the out- Zimbabwe 8 1.9 of-school Namibia 9 1.2 Group 1 Botswana 11 2.1 incidence for São Tomé and Príncipe 12 4.5 children in the Lesotho 13 1.6 primary and Kenya 14 1.6 secondary age Ghana 17 2.2 Congo, Rep. 20 2.9 groups. Togo 14 5.7 Malawi 17 6.2 Uganda 18 1.9 Group 2 Rwanda 20 6.7 Congo, Dem. Rep. 26 8.5 Tanzania 29 7.0 Comoros 30 4.6 Cameroon 43 2.0 Zambia 31 11.7 Burundi 32 13.7 Angola 33 10.6 Sierra Leone 34 29.3 Madagascar 35 11.5 Group 3 Gambia 36 11.2 Nigeria 37 5.3 Ethiopia 40 22.9 Côte d'Ivoire 42 16.8 Mauritania 44 10.9 Mozambique 46 6.0 Benin 58 15.0 Sudan 39 1.7 Chad 47 41.4 Burkina Faso 47 25.9 Group 4 Guinea 52 36.3 Senegal 57 19.7 Niger 60 29.0 Mali 68 19.3 Liberia 70 42.2 75 55 35 15 5 25 45 Poorest Richest Source: The figure is based on analysis done for the forthcoming World Bank regional study on the Quality of Basic Education (World Bank, 2017, Better Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implementing What Works). Social Protection and Labor Social protection and labor systems help build resilience to shocks, improve equity, and build opportunities, by helping people and families find jobs, improve productivity, and invest in the health and education of their children. 32 Pension systems and labor market insurance generally cover only a small share of the population—civil servants and those employed in the small formal sector—while often consuming a large share of the national social protection budget. There is vast need—and often limited national budget—for social assistance measures to protect the very poorest. Social safety nets or social assistance are noncontributory schemes, which aim to provide protection for the poorest and most vulnerable and incentivize them to improve their livelihoods and participate productively in society. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of countries implementing at least one social safety net program increased from six in 2000 to 20 by 2008 at the onset of the economic crisis, to 46 in 2017 (Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming).6 There is a wide variety of experience with social safety nets, and this is reflected in the heterogeneity in CPIA scores. Food insecure and conflict-affected countries typically have low scores; more stable countries with stronger social protection systems have higher scores (figure C.9). Average Social Protection CPIA Score, by Country Group and Social Safety Net Features FIGURE C.9 Food insecure More and conflict- Positive 3.5 Overall 3.0 affected 2.5 countries 2.0 typically have 1.5 Average CPIA score 1.0 low social 0.5 protection 0.0 scores. Low income Lower middle income Fragile Non-fragile Not present In progress Present No solid plans In progress In place Limited or no measures Moderate Strong No SSNs Overall development of Income group Fragile states Social protection strategy Safety net system Measure to deal with crisis Sources: CPIA scores; Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming. Note: SSNs = social safety nets. Despite the heterogeneity across the continent, social protection is becoming a core instrument in the effort to reduce poverty. More and more African countries are preparing social protection strategies to serve as the foundation on which to build effective and efficient social protection systems. A recent study (Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming) finds that by 2016, 30 African countries had established social protection as one of the pillars of their stand-alone national social protection strategies. Following a series of devastating climatic shocks in recent years, adaptive safety nets have been placed high on the governments’ agendas. The shocks demonstrate the need for a national, scalable social safety net. For example, the study finds that in the Sahel, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal are testing mechanisms with temporary transfers to reach households affected by shocks, and the Productive Safety Net in Ethiopia incorporates several features to respond to climate change. The study also finds that the development of a safety net system is in progress in 27 African countries; several countries already have in place safety net systems with adequate policies and delivery capacity (Botswana, Cabo Verde, Mauritius, Namibia, the Seychelles, South Africa, and Tanzania). 6 Kathleen Beegle, Aline Coudouel, and Emma Monsalve, editors, forthcoming, Realizing the Full Potential of Social Safety Nets in Africa, Washington, DC: World Bank. 33 In countries that experience repeated crises, it can be challenging to transition between immediate humanitarian response and a longer-term safety net that strengthens resilience. Only a few years ago, the most common social safety net programs were school feeding programs, public work programs, emergency and categorical transfer programs, and general subsidies with low coverage of the poor. Now, there is increasing representation of national poverty-targeted cash transfers (including in Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, and Tanzania), and increasingly these are being designed such that their targeting and distribution tools can be used in times of crisis to channel additional resources to the needy (box C.2). BOX C.2 Cash transfer programs targeted at households based on their welfare levels are the most rapidly growing type Characteristics of social safety net programs (Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming). The Livelihood Empowerment of Selected Against Poverty program in Ghana, Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Kenya, Vision 2020 National Poverty- Umurenge Direct Support in Rwanda, National Cash Transfer Program in Senegal, and Productive Social Safety Targeted Cash Net Conditional Cash Transfer in Tanzania were scaled up rapidly in a short time (figure BC.2.1). Transfers These programs combine Figure BC.2.1. Social Safety Net Coverage: Selected Cash Transfer Programs different targeting mechanisms, 18 such as community-based, Senegal - PNBSF 16 Coverage of population % means/income, and proxy means 14 tests (table BC.2.1). The safety 12 Tanzania - PSSN 10 net programs in Ghana, Senegal, 8 and Kenya use mechanisms 6 Kenya - OVC to promote human capital 4 Rwanda - VUP investments in health and/or 2 Ghana - LEAP education, but do not apply 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 penalties for noncompliance. In Source: Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming. Tanzania, health and education Note: LEAP = Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty; OVC = Orphans and Vulnerable Children; PNBSF = Programme National de Bourses de Sécurité Familiale; PSSN = Productive conditionalities are monitored Social Safety Net; VUP = Vision 2020 Umurenge. and penalties enforced. Direct support in Rwanda provides cash transfers to extremely poor households with no labor, and does not require beneficiaries to comply with any conditions. The Productive Social Safety Net (PSSN) in Tanzania is among the largest cash transfer programs in the region, benefiting 9.7 percent of the total population (1,098,856 households in 2016). The cash program in Senegal covered 15.9 percent of the total population in 2016 (197,751 households). Coverage in Ghana (213,414 households), Kenya (1,765,000 individuals), and Rwanda (86,772 households) is around 3.5 percent of the total population. Spending on these programs is on average 0.23 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with Rwanda spending the most as a percentage of GDP (0.48 percent of GDP in 2015). In 2014, around 50 percent of the cash transfer beneficiaries in Rwanda were poor; in Ghana, 70 percent of the beneficiaries were in the bottom 60 percent of the consumption distribution in 2012a; and the majority of PSSN beneficiaries in Tanzania (83 percent) were in the bottom 40 percent of the consumption distribution.b In Kenya, there is no robust evidence on the effectiveness of targeting. However, some evidence shows that safety net programs are mostly succeeding in targeting resources to poor counties.c 34 Table BC.2.1. Main Features of Selected Cash Transfer Programs BOX C.2 Continued Coverage Spending Generosity % GDP per capita % population Start Country Program name Targeting % GDP year Year Year Year Livelihood Geographic, categorical community- Ghana Empowerment Against 2008 based, means/income, and proxy- 3.4 2016 0.06 2015 9 2015 Poverty means tests Geographic, categorical, community- Kenya Cash transfer for OVC 2004 3.8 2016 0.13 2016 18 2016 based, and proxy-means tests Rwanda Vision 2020 Umurenge 2008 Community-based 3.2 2015 0.48 2015 48 2012 National cash transfer Geographic, community-based, means/ Senegal 2013 15.9 2016 0.2 2015 19 2015 program income, and proxy-means tests Productive Social Safety Community-based and proxy-means Tanzania Net–Conditional Cash 2012 9.7 2016 0.28 2016 10 2012 tests Transfer Source: Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve forthcoming. Note: GDP = gross domestic product; OVC = Orphans and Vulnerable Children. a. Using Rwanda’s Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey EICV4, 2014, and the Ghana Living Standards Survey IV, 2012. b. World Bank, 2016, Evaluating Tanzania’s Productive Social Safety Net: Targeting Performance, Beneficiary Profile, and Other Baseline Findings, Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/273011479390056768/Evaluating-Tanzanias-productive- social-safety-net-targeting-performance-beneficiary-profile-and-other-baseline-findings. c. World Bank and Republic of Kenya Ministry of State for Planning, 2012, Kenya Social Protection Sector Review: Executive Report, Nairobi, World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16974 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. More and more impact evaluations are being undertaken, contributing to a growing body of evidence on safety net programs in Africa. Ralston, Andrews, and Hsiao (2017)7 conducted a meta-analysis of 55 impact evaluations since 2005, covering 25 safety net programs in 13 African countries. Overall, the impacts on consumption and food security make a strong case for investment in safety net programs as vehicles to reduce poverty. Safety net programs also show strong potential for building risk management capacity and promoting resilience. They also have transformative potential to boost education and health outcomes, and can promote productive inclusion of the poor. In general, the CPIA ratings for labor markets (2.6) and pensions (2.5) are lower than those for safety nets (3.1). The demographic “youth bulge” is increasingly recognized as a key adverse factor in risk of political instability. Youth employment opportunities and skills training for appropriate and available jobs are sorely needed. The overall CPIA score for social protection and labor increased from 2.9 in 2015 to 3.0 in 2016. The results show that there were no downgrades, even for countries experiencing conflict. Three countries—Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, and Madagascar—increased their ratings following a renewed priority by the government on safety nets and support to a scaled-up social assistance program from the World Bank. 7 Laura Ralston, Colin Andrews, and Allan Hsiao, 2017, “A Meta-Analysis of Safety Net Programs in Africa,” Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. 35 In Côte d’Ivoire, the set of overall social safety net programs remains limited, but efforts to reduce fragmentation started in 2016. As of late 2016, Côte d’Ivoire has started implementing community mobilization, proxy-means testing, and community validation for targeting and identification under its national social safety net system, having previously relied mainly on limited donor-financed vertical programs. A national cash transfer program, household registry, reliable and efficient payment system, and accompanying measures to support human capital and household productivity were launched. The government began implementing the cash transfer program in 2016: 5,000 beneficiaries received identification cards for receiving cash transfers following proxy-means testing and community validation during August to October 2016. In Guinea-Bissau, the government has prepared a Social Protection Strategy and the development of a social registry. The social registry contributes to two goals: the first is to identify households in poverty and provide basic social services coverage for them; the second is to gather information, which could be used for the diagnosis, conception, and implementation of future social protection programs. The government is currently implementing a pilot cash transfer program (financed by IDA) to provide incremental income to 2,000 vulnerable households. In Madagascar, safety net programs are well targeted and cover the main vulnerable groups (particularly the extreme poor); the programs are built to be responsive to shifting needs (for example, disaster response); and they are increasingly coordinated across government ministries and entities as well as development partners (the United Nations Children’s Fund, European Union, World Food Progamme, and others). The pilot conditional cash transfer program, launched in 2015 to cover 5,000 households, was scaled up to cover about 39,000 households by the end of 2016. In addition, the government launched the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) through cash for work, covering more than 30,000 households over a three-year period in six regions of the country. In response to the severe drought in the south of the country, Development Intervention Fund (Fonds d’Intervention pour le Developpement, or FID, as it is called locally) (with financing from the World Bank) has prepared an emergency cash transfer program for up to 68,000 households in five affected districts. The emergency program combines cash transfers with livelihood recovery grants and nutrition services (provided through the National Nutrition Program). As of December 2016, it was already covering 15,000 households. The proxy-means test–based targeting instrument has been scaled up in Madagascar and is being used for the conditional cash transfer program as well as the Productive Safety Net Program. The ministry is envisaging its use for its own programs, beyond those financed by the World Bank, and is discussing with some development partners the joint application of the instrument. This development should not only provide the country with an objective and transferrable targeting instrument, but also contribute to greater equity by ensuring that the poorest population is included in social programs. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability The environmental and natural resources management (ENRM) component of the CPIA relies on a standard scoring tool measuring (i) the appropriateness and implementation of policies across a range of environmental topics: air pollution, water pollution, solid and hazardous waste, freshwater resources, marine and coastal resources, biodiversity, commercial renewable resources (mainly forests and fish), commercial nonrenewable resources (mainly minerals), and climate change; and (ii) the strength of cross-cutting institutional systems, including the quality of the environmental impact assessment 36 system, and a range of environmental Overall Results for Environmental and Natural Resources Management, 2016 MAP C.1 governance factors, including access to information, CABO VERDE MAURITANIA participation, MALI NIGER SUDAN ERITREA coordination, and THE GAMBIA SENEGAL BURKINA CHAD FASO accountability. GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA BENIN NIGERIA CÔTE ETHIOPIA SIERRA LEONE D’IVOIRE GHANA CENTRAL AFRICAN SOUTH SUDAN The CPIA score for the LIBERIA TOGO CAMEROON SOMALIA REPUBLIC region’s IDA countries EQUATORIAL GUINEA SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE REP. OF UGANDA KENYA GABON CONGO averaged 3.2, virtually RWANDA DEM. REP. OF BURUNDI unchanged from the CONGO TANZANIA previous year. Country- Overall scores SEYCHELLES 5 COMOROS level scores ranged ANGOLA 4 ZAMBIA MALAWI from 1.0 to 4.0, with 3.5 around 70 percent of 3 ZIMBABWE MOZAMBIQUE MADAGASCAR MAURITIUS NAMIBIA 2.5 the countries (26 of 38) BOTSWANA 2 scoring 3.0 or 3.5 (map 1 SWAZILAND C.1 and figure C.10). No data SOUTH AFRICA LESOTHO Overall, most countries have relatively IBRD 43029 | JULY 2017 Source: CPIA database. This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Note: The figure shows the CPIA environmental and natural resources management scores for shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank comprehensive Budget, Performance Review & Strategic Planning General Services Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. International Development Association countries in Africa. Printing & Multimedia environmental policies, but there are gaps between policy and Distribution of Environment CPIA Scores for Countries in Africa, 2016 FIGURE C.10 implementation. ENRM scores About 70 tend to be higher for African 20 percent of the countries that are categorized countries had 16 15 as being more resilient. The gap an environment Number of countries score of 3.0 in performance is substantial 12 11 or 3.5. compared with other countries 8 in the region. 5 4 4 Across the region, four countries 2 1 saw a deterioration in the 0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 score and two countries an Environment CPIA Score, 2016 improvement in 2016. The Source: CPIA database. Republic of Congo made modest improvements in environmental accountability, but its air and water pollution management and commercial renewable resources management worsened, pulling the country’s ENRM score down to 2.5. Mali’s ENRM score fell from 4.0 to 3.5, as access to information and accountability declined and water pollution, solid and hazardous waste management, and climate change metrics worsened. In Sierra Leone, public participation in environmental matters 37 worsened, as has the country’s management of marine and coastal resources, ecosystem and biodiversity, commercial renewable resources, and climate change. The score for South Sudan dropped from 2.0 to 1.0, reflecting worsening across most parameters. Togo and Zimbabwe saw an increase in their ENRM score to 4.0, thanks to gains in several dimensions of the ENRM category. Togo made improvements in several areas, including public participation, cross-sector coordination, and accountability. Solid and hazardous waste, freshwater resources management, and commercial nonrenewable resources management also improved. Zimbabwe registered improvements in cross-sector coordination, access to information, solid and hazardous waste management, and commercial nonrenewable resources. Across the 14 performance metrics of institutional and subsector performance that contribute to the ENRM assessment, nine registered a net improvement. Solid and hazardous waste management showed the strongest improvement (eight countries improving their rating and six decreasing). Public participation and water pollution showed the worst ratio (one country improving and four decreasing in both cases), despite that on average public participation has one of the highest scores for the region. Ecosystem and biodiversity was the metric with the highest score for the region on average; air pollution scored the lowest. The only metric that did not change since 2015 was the one for climate change; two countries improved their score, while six declined. The relative performance across the 14 metrics was similar to previous years: • Accountability (public access to information, participation, environmental assessment, and coordination) remained the 12th lowest metric and a long way behind the other institutional measures. • The ecosystem and biodiversity metric was the best performing sector-specific measure. • Pollution-related measures continued to perform poorly, and showed a declining trend compared with 2015. Solid waste was the only pollution-related metric with an average score above 3, and improving since 2015. Overall, the IDA countries in Sub- FIGURE C.11 Environment CPIA Score, by Country Group, 2016 Saharan Africa have a small edge For the in performance over those in the environment 4.0 CPIA, Sub- rest of the world. The average 3.5 3.4 Saharan African 3.5 CPIA score for ENRM in Sub- 3.2 3.1 3.2 countries have Saharan Africa is around 0.1 point 3.0 2.9 Environment score, 2016 a small edge in performance higher (figure C.11). The region over other 2.5 outperforms other IDA countries countries. 2.0 in most individual performance metrics, with the biggest leads 1.5 in biodiversity, commercial 1.0 renewable resources, access to SSA IDA Overall IDA Fragile Non-fragile Resilient Other information, and accountability. average excluding countries SSA countries countries SSA SSA countries in SSA in SSA But the region lags other IDA Source: CPIA database. countries in air pollution and climate change. 38 CLUSTER D: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONS Cluster D covers governance and public sector capacity issues: property rights and rule-based governance; quality of budgetary and financial management; efficiency of revenue mobilization; quality of public administration; and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector. Inclusive governance and public institutions that can deliver quality services are critical to improving people’s well-being. Not surprisingly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which represent the aspirations of people across the continent, call for strong institutions.8 IDA 18, which offers a strong policy and financial package for Africa to undertake catalytic investments that can shift the development trajectory to deliver results by 2030, has a special focus on governance and institutions as well.9 Governance and public institutions serve as a foundation for investments in growth, resilience, and opportunities. These institutions span, facilitate, and underpin all development sectors, and are relevant for quality education and health care, fair economic policies, and inclusive environmental protection, among others. Building these institutions requires strengthening the core systems at the center of government, which are necessary for channeling resources to Trust in Governance Stakeholders FIGURE D.1 the bottom 40 percent in Results from the country. It also requires Citizens trust in institutions, by type of institution (%), 2014-15 Afrobarometer the development of public Religious leaders show that only sector entities grounded 44 percent of Army citizens trust in transparency, coupled tax authorities Traditional leaders with fiscal transparency, and 53 percent President have confidence technological innovation, and Courts in the formal citizen participation, among courts. Police other measures, to increase Electoral Commission trust between government National Assembly and citizens.10 According Ruling party to survey results from the Local govenrment Afrobarometer Round 6 (2016), only 44 percent of citizens Tax authorities trust tax authorities (figure Opposition party D.1). Only 53 percent have 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 confidence in the formal Source: M. Bratton and E. Gyimah-Boadi, Do Trustworthy Institutions Matter for Development? courts, compared with 72 Corruption, Trust, and Government Performance in Africa, Afrobarometer Dispatch No, 112, 2016. Note: Survey results for the percentage of respondents who say “somewhat” or “a lot.” N = 53,935. percent having confidence in religious leaders. 8 The SDGs are officially known as Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. There are 17 aspirational goals and 169 targets. Goal 16 calls to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.” 9 Governance and Institutions is one of the special themes of IDA 18; other themes include Jobs and Economic Transformation; Gender; Climate; and Fragility, Conflict, and Violence. The emphasis on governance seeks to facilitate an integrated, multisectoral approach to public sector reform that builds on lessons learned and promotes results-driven delivery of IDA. The approach also recognizes that progress in governance and institutional capacity development often requires longer-term investments spanning more than a three-year IDA replenishment cycle. 10 IDA 18 - Towards 2030: Investing in Growth, Resilience and Opportunity, World Bank, 2017. 39 Open and accountable governance institutions ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision making; strengthen the rule of law; promote transparency; enforce property rights; and ensure equal access to justice for all. These institutions also help reduce illicit financial flows, fight crime, and promote peace in society. Effective revenue collection, coupled with sound budgetary and financial management, enhances predictability in public investment. A sound revenue base underpins countries’ ability to deliver the services required to sustain the social contract between citizens and the state, while offering other benefits of reduced dependence on development assistance, and serving as a catalyst for broader improvements in government responsiveness, resilience, and capacity. Sub-Saharan African countries have FIGURE D.2 Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Regions experienced a modest net gain in Sub-Saharan 4.0 the number of countries registering African countries 3.5 3.4 3.5 strengthening in cluster D scores continue to lag 3.2 in 2016—that is, 10 countries 3.1 Cluster D CPIA scores, 2016 3.0 3.0 other countries 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 experienced an increase while six in most 2.7 dimensions of 2.5 recorded a decline. Nonetheless, governance, the average score for the IDA especially on 2.0 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa corruption and property rights. 1.5 continues to lag that of other IDA countries. This pattern is evident 1.0 across most of the dimensions Efficiency of Quality of budgetary Quality of public Property rights Transparency, revenue & financial administration & rule-based accountablity & of governance that make up mobilization management government corruption in public sector cluster D, with the largest gaps SSA IDA average IDA excluding SSA in corruption (0.3) and property Source: CPIA database. rights (0.2) (figure D.2). These gaps signal the need to expedite reforms and capacity development, as is highlighted by the Afrobarometer ratings. Sub-Saharan African countries are diverse, with mixed governance performance. The regional average score for cluster D in 2016 is 3.0. The average score for fragile countries is 2.8; non-fragile countries, 3.3; non- resource-rich countries, 3.1; and resource-rich countries, 3.0. These variations in average scores indicate a multiplicity in policy motivation for pursuing public sector reforms to underpin development efforts, and the effects of institutional context on governance performance. Across the board, resilient countries are associated with higher than average CPIA scores (figure D.3). Public sector scores in resilient countries, such as Rwanda, Senegal, and Tanzania, are better compared with countries that are falling behind, such as Nigeria and the Republic of Congo, and those that are stuck in the middle, such as Ghana and Benin. The average score for efficiency of revenue mobilization for resilient countries is 3.8, compared with around 3.4 for other countries. The average score for quality of budget and financial management is likewise higher for resilient countries (3.6) compared with other countries (3.1). For the quality of public administration, the average score is 3.3 for resilient countries, compared with 2.8 for other countries. Furthermore, the score for property rights and rule-based governance for resilient countries is 3.2, compared with 2.7 for other countries. And the score for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector for resilient countries is 3.1, compared with 2.6 for other countries. These institutional 40 attributes, whether in better or lower performing countries, Cluster D Scores in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group FIGURE D.3 indicate that governance reforms Resilient 4.0 3.8 countries should focus on reducing risks 3.6 outperform 3.5 3.4 3.3 associated with economic and 3.2 3.1 other countries 3.1 on all elements sectoral policies that can help 3.0 CPIA score, 2016 2.8 2.7 2.6 of cluster D. better manage commodity price 2.5 volatility, natural hazards, terrorism threats, and other drivers of a 2.0 country’s resilience. 1.5 A positive trend in quality of 1.0 Efficiency of Quality of budgetary Quality of public Property rights Transparency, governance is noticeable in 2016, revenue & financial administration & rule-based accountablity & mobilization management government corruption in largely across public financial public sector management. Cluster D scores Resilient countries Other countries in SSA strengthened across a range of 10 fragile and non-fragile countries: Change in Cluster D Score in 2016 FIGURE D.4 Cameroon, the Comoros, Côte Cluster D scores d’Ivoire, Guinea, Madagascar, Cameroon strengthened Malawi, Mauritania, São Tomé Comoros across a range Côte d'Ivoire of 10 fragile and Príncipe, Tanzania, and Togo Guinea and non-fragile (figure D.4). At the same time, Madagascar countries: several countries saw a slippage Malawi Cameroon, the Mauritania Comoros, Côte in the quality of governance and São Tomé and Príncipe d’Ivoire, Guinea, institutions: Burundi, Ghana, Niger, Tanzania Madagascar, Togo Malawi, Uganda, South Sudan, and Cabo Burundi Mauritania, Verde. Significant improvements in Ghana São Tomé the quality of budget and financial Niger and Príncipe, Uganda Tanzania, and management have been recorded Cabo Verde Togo. in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, South Sudan Madagascar, and Mauritania. An -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 upgrade in the quality of revenue Source: CPIA database. mobilization has been experienced in Guinea (table D.1). Quality of Public Financial Management Public financial management plays a central role in the implementation of development policies that lead to poverty alleviation and inclusive growth, by promoting fiscal stability, sustainability, and efficient delivery of public services, and ensuring the transparency and accountability of public resource management.11 Public financial systems, institutions, and stakeholders aim to achieve these outcomes by strengthening governments’ budgeting; treasury; accounting; controls; audit; and cash, public investment, asset, 11 Public financial management addresses several objectives. It can be implemented in response to a particular fiscal problem or crisis, typically a growing deficit and the need to raise revenues, curb expenditures, or use existing resources more efficiently. It can be implemented as part of a social and political agenda to ensure better service delivery in health, education, or other sectors. For more details, see, for example, Public Financial Management Reform in the Middle East and North Africa: An Overview of Regional Experience, PFM Reform as Means and Not Ends, World Bank, 2010. 41 Table D.1. Changes in Cluster D Scores, by Indicator Number of Number of Indicators Countries with increases Countries with decreases increases decreases Property Rights and Rule-based São Tomé and Príncipe, 2 0 Governance Senegal Cameroon, Comoros, Côte Burundi, Cabo Verde, Central African Quality of Budgetary and 6 6 d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Malawi, Republic, Niger, South Sudan, Financial Management Mauritania Uganda Efficieny of Revenue Mobilization 1 1 Guinea Senegal Central African Republic, Quality of Public Admininstration 3 1 South Sudan Tanzania, Togo Transparency, Acocuntablity, and 0 2 Cabo Verde, Ghana Corruption in Public Sector Source: CPIA database debt, and revenue management. In addition, integrated financial management systems have been developed to improve the information base for policy decision making and controls. These information technology (IT) systems have several functional modules, including for macroeconomic forecasting, budget preparation, budget execution (including cash management, accounting, and fiscal reporting), managing the size of the civil service establishment and its payroll and pensions, debt management, tax administration, and auditing. (See figure D.5.) In Cameroon, upgrades to the FIGURE D.5 Elements of Public Financial Management public financial management systems have focused on Government Financial Information and Its Users the follow-up, timeliness, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and public accessibility of Tax & Treasury Budgets Commitments Receipts Non-tax Creditors budget reports and audits, Revenues and on budget management Line Warrants POs & General Balances Banks improvements. The annual Ministries Contracts Ledger in Accounts reports are publicly available on Revenue Fixed Bills & Loans & Fiscal the Audit Bench website (www. Agencies Assets Invoices Grants Reports Taxpayers chambresdescomptes.net). Efforts Debt are being made to refine policy Management Payroll and Payments Financial Audit Donors Agency Pensions Statements Reports priorities to rationalize and scale GOVERNMENT AUDITORS down public investment to contain the fiscal deficit. Source: A Handbook on Financial Management Information Systems for Government: A Practitioners Guide for Setting Reform Priorities, Systems Design and Implementation, World Bank, 2014. Note: POs = purchase orders. Furthermore, an integrated financial management system (TOM2 PRO) was operationalized in Cameroon. The system facilitates the processing of donor-funded project transactions and serves as a platform to gather, in a comprehensive manner, information related to commitments, undisbursed amounts, and disbursements facilitating government planning and programing activities. In addition, Audit Bench has registered ongoing progress and can ensure the timely audit of government accounts and submit them to the Parliament, and carry out controls and due diligence functions. 42 In Côte d’Ivoire, improvement in budget policy links has been observed. The government is making headway in the development of sector and global Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks and program budgets in all ministries, as per the West African Economic Monetary Union’s financial management guidelines. Budget classification allows the identification of pro-poor spending with the use of a budget information system (SIGFIP). The preparation of budget investment is done through an investment planning platform that interfaces with the expenditure chain (SIGFIP). The expenditure chain, which covers the budget execution and control cycles, is fully computerized and interfaces well with the procurement (SIGMAP) and treasury system. SIGMAP, after an upgrade, is now web-enabled. The authorities have also deployed a local public financial management system in 12 localities, for better resource utilization and transparency at the deconcentrated level. Furthermore, resource management for budget planning is improving. The interface between the human resource system and the budget system (SIGFIP) has been created, which allows for smooth transmission of human resource data to the payroll system. All these automated systems have helped with the budget preparation process and its timely approval by the Parliament, including prior consultation with concerned ministries and preparation of reports. In addition, the Ivorian government continues to work on improving the transparency, accountability, and performance of public enterprises through the centralization and close monitoring of operations. About 78 national public enterprises operate stand-alone accounting systems, which are not connected to the central government’s budgeting system. Connection would allow for rapid exchange of data, reporting, and monitoring. To address this accountability and control challenge, on a phased basis, the authorities have set up a central system in the Ministry of Budget and established an interconnection with some important national public enterprises. Furthermore, fiscal reporting and transparency, in line with the commitments to the Open Government Partnership, have improved. To this end, an Open Data Portal was launched, although the content and coverage are still limited. More financial and fiscal data are online for public use. Budget execution statements are published quarterly, and the Ivorian government’s financial statement is being produced in a timely manner. In Madagascar, the budget and financial management system has seen several upgrades. Budget quality and its links to policy are now better. The improvements are reflected in increased allocation for priority sectors, the successful preparation of fiscal aggregates on a rolling basis for the past few years, and the timely preparation of budget documents. In addition, policy decision making has benefitted from a robust normative framework, which meets international standards. The government’s budget classification comprises five sub-classifications: administrative, economic, functional, geographic, and programmatic, and by source of funding. The functional classification complies with the public administration classification/classification of public administration functions, included in the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics Manual 2011. The Malagasy Chart of Account is now compliant with International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards. In view of these factors, the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) rating for Madagascar is A, under the PEFA PI-5 Indicator for Comprehensiveness and Transparency – Classification of the Budget.12 12 PEFA Secretariat, World Bank. 43 Furthermore, monthly budget execution reports are available online. The government reduced the delay in the production of the annual public account. It is now compliant with existing legislation regarding the timeliness of the presentation of the audited account to the Parliament. The Court of Account held a public presentation of its report for the first time in more than 30 years. In Mauritania, public financial management was strengthened by reforms to increase budget integration, introduction of information systems, and fiscal reporting to improve citizens’ access to information. The implementation of the Public Investment Program—the Council of Ministers Decree No. 2016-179 of 2016 that defines steps for the evaluation, selection, and implementation of the public investment program13— was successfully initiated. Operation manuals and supporting regulatory texts defining monitoring and evaluation arrangements for this framework were developed. Furthermore, investment budget monitoring was improved through the drafting of a Finance Law, which was submitted to the Parliament in November 2016. This law, once promulgated, seeks to unify for the first time the national and external financing of public investment, adopting a common budget nomenclature. In addition, a new medium- term development plan was advanced to address inadequacies in the effectiveness of investment spending, in line with the priorities of the development plan and to reduce the risk of over-indebtedness. Notable progress has been made in consolidating and introducing new information systems for effective financial management in customs administration and debt management in Mauritania. Customs operations have been computerized using a modern IT system (SYDONIA World version) in customs administration offices in Nouakchott, Nonaudio, and Rosso. The system permits automated management of key customs procedures, including processing declarations; releasing goods for consumption, transit, suspension of duties, and taxes; handling authorizations for vehicles imported temporarily by nonresidents; and processing the clearance of vehicle parts and components. For improved treasury operations, a new Debt Management and Analysis System to replace the Excel-based tool was implemented. The new system helps to facilitate data exchange between debt management, payment systems, and other treasury solutions. In addition, a budget preparation software was tested to support budget planning. The major focus of the Mauritanian authorities has been to improve the fiscal reporting of the parastatal sector, to increase information to citizens and boost economic debate. For this purpose, the Ministry of Finance has published the audited financial statements of the five largest state-owned enterprises, namely, the state-owned iron-ore company, SNIM; the Port Authority of the Port of Nouakchott; the national oil company, SMHPM; the national gas company, SOMAGAZ; and the government-owned electric utility, SOMELEC. Moreover, monthly fiscal reports have been introduced on the Treasury website, which covers budget execution reports, mining and petroleum operators’ reports (including the audit report of the petroleum fund), a series of tables on the Financial Operations of the State, the monthly situation of the Treasury, and other bulletins. Revenue Mobilization Although it is a development priority under Vision 2030, there were few gains in the quality of revenue mobilization in 2016. According to the Doing Business report, Sub-Saharan Africa needs to improve its tax payment systems to fund development programs. For example, it takes 304 hours per year to complete the paperwork and other formalities for paying taxes in the region, compared with 198 hours per year in East Asia and the 13 This new framework consolidates capital expenditure and enforces the integration of all public investment, including by state-owned enterprises, in the Public Investment Program. The new regulation also introduced various types of filters, including those aligned with (i) the evaluation of investment projects, (ii) the presence of a stable regulatory framework, (iii) coordination of investment plans with the country’s development strategy, and (iv) integration of investment budgeting into the government’s overall medium-term fiscal plan. 44 Pacific and 208 hours per year in the Middle East and North Africa. The number of tax payments per year is also high in Sub-Saharan Africa, at 39, compared with 23 in East Asia and the Pacific and 18 in the Middle East and North Africa (table D.2). The level of revenue to GDP remains modest in Sub-Saharan Africa (tax revenue to GDP was nearly 16 percent in 2013), suggesting the potential to increase these revenues. Table D.2. Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems Paying taxes Payments Time Region distance to frontier (number per year) (hours per year) Sub-Saharan Africa 56 39 304 South Asia 58 32 284 Latin America and Caribbean 59 29 343 East Asia and Pacific 72 23 198 Europe and Central Asia 77 18 222 Middle East and North Africa 77 18 208 Source: World Bank Doing Business Indicators, 2017. Guinea is the only country in the region to record an upgrade in the quality of revenue mobilization in 2016. This improvement has been mainly due to tax administration measures coupled with steady policy measures, despite the post-Ebola shock and the negative impact of the fall in prices of metals and minerals. The country has accelerated its efforts to strengthen tax administration with development partner assistance (for example, the European Union and France). The key objectives include developing a strategic approach, improving user-oriented service, building capacity, establishing and implementing a multi-annual training plan, carrying out a taxpayers’ survey in the field, and implementing a modern information system. The authorities have made progress in the development of a real estate database and carrying out a survey to populate a database of professionals. In the region, resource-rich and Compliance Time for Filing and Paying Taxes, by Region FIGURE D.6 fragile countries need to redouble their governance reform efforts, to Electronic 600 tax filing and improve revenue mobilization to paying systems 500 meet the development priorities have reduced of poverty alleviation, jobs, compliance Time (hours per year) 400 time across the infrastructure, and service delivery. world, including Domestic resource mobilization and 300 in Sub-Saharan local and foreign investment can be 200 Africa. encouraged through international good practices, such as introducing 100 value-added tax (VAT) reforms, 0 setting up revenue administration Europe & East Asia & Latin America Sub-Saharan Middle East South Asia Central Asia Pacific & Caribbean Africa & North Africa authorities, introducing electronic filing systems (figure D.6), deploying 2006 2017 a bookkeeping system to track VAT, Source: World Bank Doing Business Indicators, 2017. and promoting nontax reforms.14 14 As a result of tax policy and administration reforms, in recent years, Sub-Saharan Africa has recorded about 15 percent higher actual tax revenues relative to predicted values (that is, the tax revenue index). For lessons and good practices, see “Tax Revenue and Tax Efforts across the World,” Tuan Minh Le, Blanca Moreno-Dodson, and Nihal Bayraktar, World Bank, 2014. 45 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance and Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector Sub-Saharan Africa is lagging in property rights protection and the fight against corruption, weighing down on overall performance of Cluster D. For example, justice sector performance in the region’s IDA countries is weaker than that in other IDA countries (for the property rights and rule-based governance indicator, the average score in Sub-Saharan Africa is 2.8, compared with 3.0 in other IDA countries). Similarly, Sub- Saharan Africa’s IDA countries’ score for transparency, accountability, and fight against corruption (2.7) is lower than that for other IDA countries (3.0). These low scores imply a loss of public resources that could be effectively channeled toward development programs. The World Governance Indicators also suggest that transparency and effective judicial enforcement (which are closely associated key elements of the cluster D indicator) need to be radically improved to put a dent in corruption and build trust in public institutions.15 Furthermore, the CPIA scores for both governance dimensions remained unchanged in 2016 compared with 2015. The cause may have been lack of attention by the authorities to justice sector capacity building, and the difficulty of policy decision making due to a dearth of data on justice performance. Another potential explanation would be the continuation of violence, corrupt practices, and political and ethnic conflict in many countries, which are keeping institutions opaque and unaccountable, and citizens vulnerable and at risk. The recently completed FIGURE D.7 Access to Justice in African Countries: regional Access to Citizen Views and Experiences with Formal Courts Afrobarometer Justice Survey 2016, by results show that citizens Experienced long delays Afrobarometer with World 60 who have had in court case Bank support, partially fills the contact with formal courts gap in information on justice Obtaining assistance from formal identify high 54 performance. The survey courts "di cult" or "very di cult" costs, delays, offers actionable data on user and the Could not understand perceptions and priorities for weak quality 47 of service legal procedures reform (figure D.7).16 Among provision as all respondents, 43 percent of problems. 42 Could not obtain legal counsel Africans trust the courts “not at all” or just a little”. Furthermore, Unable to pay legal cost 38 respondents who reported having contact with formal Paid bribe to get assistance courts indicated that high 30 from formal courts costs, delays, and the weak quality of service provision 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 are challenges that require Percent attention for the improvement Source: Data are from highlights of the of Round 6 survey findings from 36 African countries, of access to justice. Afrobarometer, 2017. Note: Percent of survey respondent who said they had contact with formal courts (13 percent of total). The survey interviewed 54,000 citizens from 36 countries. 15 At the Global Anti-Corruption Summit in 2016, the President of the World Bank Group outlined the notion of “radical transparency” to address the challenge of corruption. http://www.gov.uk/government/topical event/anti-corruption-summit-london-2016. 16 Access to Justice Policy Paper 39, Afrobarometer. http://www.afrobarometer.org/press/access-justice-still-elusive-many-africans-afrobarometer- survey-finds. 46 For strengthening property rights, fighting corruption, and promoting governance accountability, international experience suggests: reforms that alleviate delays and reduce backlogs in courts; promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; provide free legal assistance and reduce court fees; build the skills of justice sector officials and judges and their disciplinary systems; and bring services closer to the people, especially vulnerable groups. Conclusion In moving forward, implementation of ongoing governance and public-sector reforms (such as financial management system upgrades) need to be expanded, and new dimensions added (such as rights protection, transparency, and fighting against corruption) to achieve a more integrated approach to addressing governance challenges. The findings of the 2017 World Development Report on Governance and the Law also stress the need to reduce policy implementation gaps by improving the interaction among stakeholders and the processes by which they interact as power brokers.17 Given that governance underpins all sectors of development, promotion of capacity, systems upgrade, and reforms across all sectors could significantly enhance accountability and effectiveness. This integrated governance approach, in line with the aspirations of the SDGs and Vision 2030, could help Sub-Saharan Africa take advantage of the historic opportunity to leverage IDA18 resources and radically improve development outcomes. 17 In confronting development challenges, the World Development Report stresses a rethinking of “the processes by which state and non-state actors interact to design and implement policies”, within a given set of formal and informal rules that shape and are shaped by “power”, which is defined as “the ability of one actor to make others undertake an action that is in the actor’s interest, and that the others would not otherwise take.” 47 CPIA Africa: Compare Your Country C P I A COMPARE YOUR COUNTRY AFRICA Benin 3.4 Burkina Faso 3.6 Burundi 3.0 2016 Country CPIA Score IDA AVG. 3.2 SSA IDA AVG. 3.1 CPIA SCORE 2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 2016 Cabo Verde 3.7 Cameroon 3.2 Central African Republic 2.4 Chad 2.7 Comoros 2.9 Congo, Dem. Rep. 2.9 Congo, Rep. 2.9 Côte d' Ivoire 3.4 Ethiopia 3.5 Gambia, The 2.9 Ghana 3.5 Guinea 3.2 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 Kenya 3.8 Lesotho 3.3 Liberia 3.1 Madagascar 3.2 Malawi 3.2 Mali 3.4 Mauritania 3.4 Mozambique 3.2 Niger 3.4 Nigeria 3.3 Rwanda 4.0 São Tomé and Príncipe 3.1 Senegal 3.8 Sierra Leone 3.2 Sudan 2.5 Tanzania 3.7 Togo 3.0 Uganda 3.6 Zambia 3.3 Zimbabwe 2.7 Eritrea 1.9 South Sudan 1.6* *2012 is the rst year that CPIA scores for South Sudan are available. 48 C O U N T R Y TA B L E S BENIN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 10.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 8.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 0.1 3.7 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 789 Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 52 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Benin Average 3.7 Economic Management 3.7 3.2 3.6 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.3 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.1 3.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Benin IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.6 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Benin Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Benin • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.1 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.2 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 50 BURKINA FASO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 18.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 12.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.6 — 3.8 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 650 (Structural Policies and Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 47 and Institutions) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Burkina SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Faso Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.8 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Burkina Faso IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 4.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 3.6 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Burkina Faso Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.6 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Burkina Faso • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 51 BURUNDI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 10.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 3.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 0.1 3.5 2.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 286 (Policies for Social (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 77 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Burundi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.7 3.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 2.5 3.2 2.9 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 2.7 Trade 4.0 3.6 2.5 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Burundi IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.4 3.0 and Institutions 3.0 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Burundi Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Burundi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.6 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 52 CABO VERDE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 0.1 3.8 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,998 (Structural Policies, Polices for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 7 Management and Institutions) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Cabo SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Verde Average 4.4 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 4.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 4.0 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.8 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 3.6 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.4 Trade 4.5 3.6 3.2 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Cabo Verde IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.8 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.4 Public Sector Management 3.8 3.0 3.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 4.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 4.2 Quality of Public Administration 4.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Cabo Verde Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 4.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Cabo Verde • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa 0.0 • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.5 -0.5 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -1.0 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 53 CAMEROON World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 23.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 24.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.1 3.5 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,033 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 27 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Cameroon Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Cameroon IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.2 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Cameroon Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Cameroon • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.2 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 54 CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.4 0.1 2.8 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 382 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 81 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Central SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator African Republic Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.2 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.2 2.4 Structural Policies 2.3 3.2 Trade 2.5 3.6 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.1 Central African IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Republic Average Average Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.3 3.2 Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.6 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Social Protection and Labor 2.0 3.0 Policies and Institutions for 3.2 2.8 2.5 Environmental Sustainability 2.9 2016 Public Sector Management 2.2 3.0 2.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 1.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Central African Transparency, Accountability, 2.7 in SSA outside SSA Republic 2.5 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Central African Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.4 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 55 CHAD World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 14.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 9.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.7 0.1 3.0 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 664 (Policies for Social Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Inclusion and Equity) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 35 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Chad Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 2.5 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 Trade 3.0 3.6 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Chad IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.6 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.7 3.0 2.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Chad Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Chad • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 56 COMOROS World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 0.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.1 3.0 2.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 775 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 15 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Comoros Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.6 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Comoros IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.9 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.7 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.3 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Comoros Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Comoros • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.8 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.6 0.5 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.4 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 57 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 78.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 35.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.1 3.2 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 445 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 77 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Congo, SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Dem. Rep. Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.2 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.2 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.6 2.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Congo, Dem. Rep. IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.0 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Congo, Dem. Rep. Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Congo, Democratic Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.3 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 58 CONGO, REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 5.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 7.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.1 3.0 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,528 (Economic Management (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. and Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 28 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Congo SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Republic Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.6 2.5 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Congo, Republic IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.9 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.4 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Congo, Republic Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Congo, Republic credits to the poorest countries • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 59 CÔTE D’IVOIRE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 23.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 36.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 0.1 3.7 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,526 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Equity and Public Sector Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 23 Management and Institutions) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Côte SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator d’Ivoire Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.7 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 2.5 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Côte d’Ivoire IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Côte d’Ivoire Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Côte d’Ivoire • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 1.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.9 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.7 0.7 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 60 ERITREA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) NA Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) NA previous year performing cluster performing cluster 1.9 — 2.5 1.2 GDP per capita (current US$) NA (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change and Institutions) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) NA (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Eritrea Average 3.4 Economic Management 1.3 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.5 3.3 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.5 3.0 2.6 Debt Policy 1.0 3.2 Structural Policies 1.2 3.2 2.2 Trade 1.5 3.6 1.8 Financial Sector 1.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 1.0 3.1 Eritrea IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 and Institutions 1.9 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Eritrea Transparency, Accountability, 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 1.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Eritrea • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.3 -0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.6 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.9 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 61 ETHIOPIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 102.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 72.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 — 3.7 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 707 (Economic Management and Policies Above SSA IDA Avg. No change for Social Inclusion and Equity) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 31 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Ethiopia Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.7 3.2 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.2 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.0 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Ethiopia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ethiopia Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Ethiopia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.4 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 62 GAMBIA, THE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 2.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 — 3.3 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 473 (Structural Policies and Policies Below SSA IDA Avg. No change for Social Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 30 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Gambia, SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator The Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.2 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.0 3.3 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.0 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 2.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.6 2.8 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Gambia, The IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.2 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Gambia, The Transparency, Accountability, 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Gambia, The • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 0.1 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -1.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 63 GHANA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 28.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 42.7 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.8 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,514 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 12 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Ghana Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 3.1 Ghana IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.8 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.6 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 4.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.9 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ghana Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Ghana • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.7 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 64 GUINEA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 12.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 6.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.1 3.5 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 508 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 35 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Guinea Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.6 2.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Guinea IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Guinea Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Guinea • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.3 0.2 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 65 GUINEA-BISSAU World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 1.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.5 — 2.8 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 620 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 67 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Guinea- SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Bissau Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.3 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.2 Structural Policies 2.8 3.2 2.4 Trade 4.0 3.6 2.0 Financial Sector 2.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Guinea-Bissau IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.2 3.0 2.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.6 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Guinea-Bissau Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Guinea-Bissau • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.7 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 66 KENYA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 48.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 70.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 — 4.3 3.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,455 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 26 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Kenya Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.3 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Kenya IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.4 3.0 3.8 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.6 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Kenya Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Kenya • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.1 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 67 LESOTHO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 2.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 2.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.5 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 998 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies ) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 56 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Lesotho Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.2 3.2 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 3.2 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Lesotho IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.3 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.5 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Lesotho Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Lesotho • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.2 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) -0.8 • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 68 LIBERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 2.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.5 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 455 (Public Sector Management At the SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 45 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Liberia Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.6 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Liberia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.0 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 3.1 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2009 3.2 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.8 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Liberia Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2009 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Liberia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.5 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.3 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 69 MADAGASCAR World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 24.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 10.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.1 3.7 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 401 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 78 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Madagascar Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.7 3.2 3.6 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.5 3.2 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.6 2.8 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Madagascar IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Madagascar Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Madagascar • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.5 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.8 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 70 MALAWI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 18.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 5.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.5 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 301 (Policies for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 71 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Malawi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.2 3.4 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Malawi IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Malawi Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Malawi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 71 MALI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 18.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 14.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 — 3.8 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 781 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 51 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mali Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.8 3.2 3.7 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.1 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Mali IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Mali Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Mali • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 72 MAURITANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 4.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 0.1 3.5 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1.078 (Economic Management and Above SSA IDA Avg. Policies for Social Inclusion) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 10 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mauritania Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 3.4 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Mauritania IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Mauritania Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Mauritania • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.0 0.0 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.1 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 73 MOZAMBIQUE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 28.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 11.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.3 3.4 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 382 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 62 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mozambique Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.3 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 2.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Mozambique IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.4 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Mozambique Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Mozambique • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.4 -0.5 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -1.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 74 NIGER World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 20.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 7.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 0.1 3.7 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 363 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 45 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Niger Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.7 3.2 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.3 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.1 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Niger IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Niger Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Niger • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 0.0 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 75 NIGERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 186.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 405.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 0.1 3.5 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,178 (Economic Management and Above SSA IDA Avg. Policies for Social Inclusion (Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 52 and Institutions) and Equity) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Nigeria Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 3.5 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Nigeria IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 3.3 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Nigeria Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Nigeria • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.3 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.8 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 76 RWANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 8.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 4.0 — 4.3 3.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 703 (Policies for Social Inclusion (Public Sector Above SSA IDA Avg. No change and Equity) Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 57 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Rwanda Average 4.2 Economic Management 4.0 3.2 4.0 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 4.2 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.6 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 4.5 3.1 Rwanda IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 4.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 4.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 3.5 2016 Public Sector Management 3.7 3.0 4.0 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Rwanda Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 4.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Rwanda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.7 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.2 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 77 SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 0.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.2 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,756 (Structural Policies and Public At the SSA IDA Avg. No change Sector Management (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 32 and Institutions) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend São Tomé SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator and Príncipe Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.2 2.9 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.7 Trade 4.0 3.6 2.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 São Tomé IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.2 and Príncipe Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.1 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries São Tomé Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA and Príncipe 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries São Tomé and Príncipe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.1 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 78 SENEGAL World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 15.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 14.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 — 4.2 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 958 (Policies for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) Inclusion and Equity) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 38 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Senegal Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.2 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Senegal IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.6 3.0 3.8 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 4.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.6 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Senegal Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Senegal • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.4 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.2 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 79 SIERRA LEONE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 7.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 3.7 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.1 3.5 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 496 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 50 and Institutions) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend Sierra SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Leone Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.5 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.6 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Sierra Leone IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 3.1 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Sierra Leone Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Sierra Leone • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.4 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.0 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.2 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 80 SOUTH SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 12.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 9.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 1.6 0.3 2.0 1.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 759 Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 71 (2015) (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend South SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.5 Economic Management 1.0 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.0 3.3 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.0 3.0 2.5 Debt Policy 1.0 3.2 Structural Policies 2.0 3.2 2.0 Trade 2.0 3.6 1.5 Financial Sector 2.0 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.1 South IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 1.8 3.2 Sudan Average Average Gender Equality 2.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 1.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 1.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 1.5 3.0 and Institutions 1.6 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 1.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 1.0 3.1 2012 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.0 3.4 2.1 Quality of Public Administration 1.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries South Sudan Transparency, Accountability, 1.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 1.6 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2012 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries South Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 -0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.8 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 81 SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 39.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 95.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.5 0.1 2.7 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,415 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 12 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.4 Economic Management 2.5 3.2 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 1.5 3.2 2.6 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 2.4 Trade 2.5 3.6 2.2 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Sudan IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.2 3.0 and Institutions 2.5 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Sudan Transparency, Accountability, 1.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.2 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 82 TANZANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 55.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 47.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 — 4.0 3.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 879 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 47 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Tanzania Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Tanzania IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.4 3.0 3.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Tanzania Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Tanzania • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 83 TOGO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 7.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 4.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 — 3.4 2.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 579 (Policies for Social (Public Sector Management Below IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 53 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Togo Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 2.0 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.4 Trade 4.0 3.6 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Togo IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.7 3.0 3.0 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Togo Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Togo • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.7 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.5 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 84 UGANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 41.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 25.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.6 0.1 4.0 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 615 (Economic Management and (Public Sector Above SSA IDA Avg. Structural Policies) Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 33 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Uganda Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.2 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.3 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.2 3.4 Structural Policies 4.0 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.6 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 3.1 Uganda IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2016 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.6 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.9 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Uganda 2.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.6 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 credits to the poorest countries Uganda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 -0.3 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 85 ZAMBIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 16.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 19.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.7 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,178 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 62 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Zambia Average 3.7 Economic Management 3.0 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.3 3.5 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 Debt Policy 3.5 3.2 3.3 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.6 3.1 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Zambia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2016 3.5 3.2 3.0 and Institutions 3.3 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.5 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Zambia Transparency, Accountability, 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Zambia • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 -0.7 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 86 ZIMBABWE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2016 Quick Facts Population (millions) 16.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 16.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.7 0.2 3.4 2.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,009 (Policies for Social (Economic Management and Below SSA IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity) Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2013, est) 18 (2016) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Zimbabwe Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.3 3.2 3.0 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.3 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.5 Debt Policy 2.0 3.2 2.0 Structural Policies 2.3 3.2 1.5 Trade 2.5 3.6 1.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.1 Zimbabwe IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 3.0 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2016 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 and Institutions 2.7 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 1.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Zimbabwe Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2016 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Zimbabwe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2017 1.9 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is July 2017 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 1.3 1.3 1.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2016 0.8 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2016 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 18 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 20 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2018 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 23 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 87 Appendix A: CPIA Components A. Economic Management 1. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy: The quality of monetary/exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework. 2. Fiscal Policy: The quality of fiscal policy as regards stabilization (achieving macroeconomic policy objectives in conjunction with coherent monetary and exchange rate policies, smoothing business cycle fluctuations, accommodating shocks) and resource allocation (appropriate provisioning of public goods). 3. Debt Policy: Degree of appropriateness of the country’s debt management strategy for ensuring medium-term debt sustainability and minimizing budgetary risks. B. Structural Policies 4. Trade: Extent to which the policy framework fosters regional and global integration in goods and services, focusing on the trade policy regime (tariffs, nontariff barriers, and barriers to trade in services) and trade facilitation. 5. Financial Sector: Quality of policies and regulations that affect financial sector development on three dimensions: (a) financial stability; (b) the sector’s efficiency, depth, and resource mobilization strength; and (c) access to financial services. 6. Business Regulatory Environment: The extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private business in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. C. Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 7. Gender Equality: The extent to which policies, laws, and institutions (a) promote equal access for men and women to human capital development; (b) promote equal access for men and women to productive and economic resources; and (c) give men and women equal status and protection under the law. 8. Equity of Public Resource Use: The extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. 9. Building Human Resources: The quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education. 10. Social Protection and Labor: Policies promoting risk prevention by supporting savings and risk pooling through social insurance, protection against destitution through redistributive safety net programs, and promotion of human capital development and income generation, including labor market programs. 11. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability: The extent to which environmental policies and institutions foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution. D. Public Sector Management and Institutions 12. Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance: The extent to which economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced. 13. Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management: The extent to which there is (a) a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; (b) effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and (c) timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely audit of public accounts and effective arrangements for follow-up. 14. Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization: Assesses the overall pattern of revenue mobilization, not only the tax structure as it exists on paper, but revenues from all sources as they are actually collected. 15. Quality of Public Administration: The core administration defined as the civilian central government (and subnational governments, to the extent that their size or policy responsibilities are significant), excluding health and education personnel and police. 16. Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector: The extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. 88 Appendix B: Country Groups and Classification I. Country Groups Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Non-Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Fragile Non-Fragile Fragile Non-Fragile Burundi Benin Afghanistan Bangladesh Central African Republic Burkina Faso Djibouti Bhutan Chad Cameroon Haiti Cambodia Comoros Cabo Verde Kiribati Dominica Congo, Dem. Rep. Ethiopia Kosovo Grenada Congo, Rep. Ghana Marshall Islands Guyana Côte d’Ivoire Guinea Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Honduras Eritrea Kenya Myanmar Kyrgyz Republic Gambia, The Lesotho Papua New Guinea Lao PDR Guinea-Bissau Madagascar Solomon Islands Maldives Liberia Malawi Tuvalu Moldova Mali Mauritania Yemen, Rep. Mongolia Mozambique Niger Nepal Sierra Leone Nigeria Nicaragua South Sudan Rwanda Pakistan Sudan São Tomé and Príncipe Samoa Togo Senegal St. Lucia Zimbabwe Tanzania St. Vincent Uganda Tajikistan Zambia Timor-Leste Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Note: “Fragile situations” have either (a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or (b) the presence of a United Nations and/or regional peace-keeping or peace-building mission during the past three years. This list includes only IDA-eligible countries and non-member or inactive territories/countries without CPIA data. It excludes IBRD-only countries for which the CPIA scores are not currently disclosed. The analysis does not include the following fragile countries since they do not have CPIA data or are not IBRD countries: Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, and West Bank and Gaza. II. Country Classification in SSA by Resilience Resilient group of Other countries in SSA countries in SSA Côte d’Ivoire Burundi Ghana Nigeria Ethiopia Cameroon Guinea Rwanda Kenya Cabo Verde Guinea-Bissau São Tomé and Príncipe Mali Central African Republic Kenya Senegal Rwanda Chad Lesotho Sierra Leone Senegal Comoros Liberia South Sudan Tanzania Congo, Dem. Rep. Madagascar Sudan Congo, Rep. Malawi Tanzania Côte d’Ivoire Mali Togo Eritrea Mauritania Uganda Ethiopia Mozambique Zambia Gambia, The Niger Zimbabwe Source: World Bank staff calculations based on the World Development Indicators database, Africa’s Pulse, April 2017. 89 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) is a diagnostic tool that is intended to capture the quality of a country’s policies and institutional arrangements—that is, its focus is on the key elements that are within a country’s control, rather than on outcomes (such as growth rates) that are influenced by elements outside the country’s control. More specifically, the CPIA measures the extent to which a country’s policy and institutional framework supports sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and consequently the effective use of development assistance. The outcome of the exercise yields an overall score and scores for all of the 16 criteria that compose the CPIA. The CPIA tool was developed and first employed in the mid-1970s. Over the years, the World Bank has periodically updated and improved it to reflect the lessons of experience and the evolution of thinking about development. In June 2006, the World Bank publicly disclosed for the first time the numerical scores of its 2005 CPIA. The CPIA exercise covers country performance during a given calendar year with the results for the IDA eligible countries disclosed in June of the following year. The CPIA has undergone periodic reviews to update and refine the content of the criteria. The most recent revision of the criteria took place last year and was applied to the 2016 CPIA exercise. The revisions were guided by the conclusions of an Independent Evaluation Group evaluation, relevant findings in the literature, and lessons learned in carrying out the annual CPIA exercise in the past few years. In undertaking the revisions, special attention was given to ensuring that the content of the revisions was commensurate with the availability of information and the ability to assess country performance, and that some degree of continuity was preserved in the criteria. The revisions have not resulted in significant changes in country scores. Among the revisions are the following: • In criterion 4 (Q4, Trade), trade policy and trade facilitation are now equally weighted; more emphasis is placed on the trade regime, not just imports; services are explicitly introduced; and the trade facilitation subcomponent is elaborated. • The coverage of social assistance programs, including coordination, reach, and targeting issues in Q10 (Social Protection and Labor), was strengthened. • Q15 (Quality of Public Administration) was revised to include a stronger focus on the core public administration and, when relevant, a more explicit treatment of subnational governments. • Q16 (Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector) was revised to include a new dimension to cover aspects of financial corruption that had not been treated consistently. Coverage of fiscal information is now more explicit, and capture and conflicts of interest as distinct forms of corruption are treated more consistently. CPIA scores help to determine International Development Association allocations—concessional lending and grants—to low-income countries. Details are available at: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 90 93 JULY 2017