JUNE 2016 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Punam Chuhan-Pole and comprising Mapi M. Buitano, Vijdan Korman, and Beatrice A. Berman. Paul Brenton, Adja Mansora Dahourou, David Evans, Daniel John Kirkwood, Stephen Ling, Waleed Haider Malik, Cedric Mousset, Anna Popova, Ayago Esmubancha Wambile, Huihui Wang, and Penny Williams contributed to the report. Cesar Calderon, Christian Yves Gonzalez, Khadija Shaikh, Kebede Feda, Vivek Suri, and country teams provided valuable comments. The report was prepared under the general guidance of Albert G. Zeufack. ii Contents 2015 CPIA Results for Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CPIA Africa: Compare your country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Country Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Benin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Cabo Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Cameroon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Central African Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Chad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Comoros. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Congo, Democratic Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Congo, Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Côte d’Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Eritrea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Gambia, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Guinea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Madagascar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Malawi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Mali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Mauritania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Mozambique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Niger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 São Tomé and Príncipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Senegal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 South Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Tanzania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Appendix A: CPIA Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix B: Country Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 1 List of Figures Figure 1 Policy Frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4 Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 CPIA Scores, by Cluster and Country Group, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure A.1 Trend in Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure A.2 Fiscal Balance in Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2007–08 and 2014–15. . . . . . . . . 12 Figure A.3 Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure A.4 Evolution of Risk of Debt Stress over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure B.1 CPIA Score for Trade, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure B.2 Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure B.3 Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure B.4 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business Indicators, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure B.5 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business, by Country, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure C.1 Average CPIA Score for Equity of Public Resource Use, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . 24 Figure BC.2.1 Number of Poverty Data Points over 10-Year Periods in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure BC.2.2 Comparable Consumption Surveys per Country, 1990–2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure C.2 Statistical Capacity Indicator (SCI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure C.3 Health Outcomes by Income Category, Region, and Fragility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure C.4 Public Expenditure Share of Total Health Expenditure, by CPIA Health Component Score in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure C.5 Distribution of the CPIA score for Education, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure C.6 Environment CPIA Score for 2015 and Adjusted Net Savings (Latest Data). . . . . . . . 33 Figure D.1 Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure D.2 Change in Cluster D Score in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure D.3 Cluster D Changes between 2009 and 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 List of Maps Map C.1 Consumption Surveys, by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 List of Tables Table A.1 Changes in Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table D.1 Changes in Scores, by Indicator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table D.2 Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems (Doing Business). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2 2 0 1 5 C P I A R E S U LT S F O R A F R I C A 3 2015 CPIA AFRICA REPORT Summary u The average CPIA score for IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.2 in 2015, representing a flat regional trend in the quality of policies and institutions. Rwanda continued to lead all countries with a score of 4.0, followed by Cabo Verde, Kenya, and Senegal, all with a score of 3.8. u Beneath a flat regional trend, there was considerable movement in policy and institutional performance across countries, with half of the region’s countries experiencing a change in their aggregate CPIA score in 2015. The number of countries that saw a decline in this score outpaced the number of gainers by nearly two to one, a worsening trend compared with 2014. u Weaker macroeconomic management, underpinned by difficult global economic conditions, explains much of the deterioration in country-level performance. Indeed, over one-third of the region’s countries (13 of the 38 IDA-eligible countries) experienced a slippage in at least one of the economic management policy areas—monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt. u The latest assessments indicate that the pace of improvement in governance slowed in 2015: seven countries (compared with nine in 2014) saw measurable gains in governance, and six countries (compared with four in 2014) experienced a decline. Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector is the weakest performing component of governance. u The average CPIA score for the region’s non-fragile countries was 3.5 in 2015, comparable to that of non-fragile countries elsewhere. At the same time, Sub-Saharan Africa’s fragile countries continued to lag fragile countries outside the region, especially on governance. Recent Trends and Analysis 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. It presents Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) scores for 381 African countries that are eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA), the concessional financing arm of the World Bank Group. 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 development literature identifies the components of the CPIA as being broadly relevant for sustaining growth and reducing poverty (IEG 2010).2 CPIA 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 in determining IDA’s allocation of resources to the poorest countries. 1 38 IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that had a CPIA score in 2015. See Appendix B. 2 The World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment: An Evaluation. 4 The global economic environment facing Sub-Saharan Africa weakened significantly in 2015, as commodity prices fell sharply and growth weakened around the world, especially in emerging market economies. In some cases, the impact of external headwinds in the region was compounded by adverse domestic developments such as drought, electricity shortages, political uncertainty, and security threats. The large drop in commodity prices—for example, oil prices declined by 67 percent, from US$108/barrel in June 2014 to US$38/barrel by December 2015—represented a significant terms-of-trade shock for Sub-Saharan Africa, as much of the region’s total exports consist of commodities. Fuels, ore, and metals account for more than 60 percent of the region’s exports, compared with just 16 percent for manufactured goods and 10 percent for agricultural products. In addition, in commodity exporters, especially oil, fiscal revenues are heavily dependent on commodity-based receipts: For example, oil revenues accounted for nearly 70 percent of fiscal revenues in the Republic of Congo in 2014 and around 60 percent in Nigeria. Lower commodity prices Policy Frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa FIGURE 1 put downward pressure High or rising on the current account 5 fiscal deficits and fiscal balances, 3 mean several Overall fiscal falance ,2015 (% of GDP) exacerbating near-term ZAR countries 1 COM MRT GNB are not able economic vulnerabilities, -5 ZWE-1 SDN TCD 5 10 15 20 25 30 to use fiscal which are reflected BFA BEN RWA ETH policies to CIV MLI LSO UGA NGA SLE -3 in declining reserve CPV TZA counter the -5 SEN CMR MDG CAF effect of the positions, depreciating BDI TGO GHA MWI GIN MOZ slowdown -7 GMB ZMB currencies, higher NER KEN in economic -9 STP inflation, and rising COG activity LBR -11 debt burdens. Rising Weaker Policy Framework -13 economic vulnerabilities -15 ERI signal shrinking space for Inflation, end-2015 (%) cyclical policies. Weaker Source: Africa’s Pulse. April 2016, Volume 13. World Bank, Washington, DC. policy frameworks in several countries are, thus, constraining the scope for these countries to formulate a policy response to a more difficult economic environment (figure 1). Global trends confronting Sub-Saharan Africa, especially the end of the commodity super-cycle, have highlighted vulnerabilities in the structure of the region’s economies. Yet, the current difficult situation also presents opportunities to accelerate crucial reforms aimed at boosting competitiveness and diversification, which will be critical for raising growth prospects, reducing extreme poverty, and promoting shared prosperity. In most countries this will require greater efficiency of infrastructure investment, strengthened domestic resource mobilization, improved efficiency and quality of business regulations, reduced trade costs, a more inclusive financial sector, improved quality and quantity of human capital investments, investment in high-return areas of human capital, and improved service delivery. This calls for strengthening public institutions so as to make them more accountable for delivering services to citizens. As African countries move to rebuild momentum on economic development, the CPIA provides a useful framework for measuring the progress that countries are making on adjusting to a new, lower level of commodity prices; addressing economic vulnerabilities; and developing new sources of sustainable, inclusive growth. 5 2015 CPIA Results The average CPIA score for Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015 was 3.2, representing a flat regional trend in this measure. There was considerable diversity in aggregate scores across the region’s 38 IDA borrowers, with Rwanda continuing to lead all countries with a score of 4.0, followed by Cabo Verde, Kenya, and Senegal, all with a score of 3.8, and over one-fifth of the countries registering scores between 3.5 and 3.7 (figure 2). Half of the region’s countries showed relatively weak performance on the quality of policies and institutions (CPIA score of 3.2 or less), and the low end of the score range edged down to 1.9, as Eritrea and South Sudan saw slippages in several policy areas. Despite a broadly steady CPIA score at the regional level, half of Sub-Saharan African countries experienced a movement in the aggregate CPIA score in 2015. But the number of countries that saw a decline in score was nearly double that of the number of improvers (figure 3). Much of this decline was caused by a deterioration in the quality of economic management, underpinned by weaker global economic conditions. FIGURE 2 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2015 Indeed, 13 countries The average Rwanda 4.0 (34 percent) saw a CPIA score for Sub-Saharan Cabo Verde 3.8 reduction in at least one Kenya 3.8 of the components of the Africa in Senegal 3.8 2015 was 3.2. Uganda 3.7 economic management Rwanda leads Tanzania 3.7 again with a cluster. Burkina Faso 3.6 score of 4.0, Ghana 3.6 followed by Benin 3.5 Across the region, Cabo Verde, Ethiopia 3.5 only seven countries Kenya, and Mozambique 3.5 Senegal all with Niger 3.5 experienced an a score of 3.8. Mali 3.4 improvement in their Over one-fifth Nigeria 3.4 Côte d'Ivoire 3.3 overall CPIA score in 2015, of countries Lesotho 3.3 well below the number registered Mauritania 3.3 scores between Sierra Leone 3.3 of countries with gains in 3.5 and 3.7 Zambia 3.3 2014. Among the gainers, Malawi 3.2 SSA-IDA Average 3.2 Ghana led with a 0.2-point Burundi 3.1 increase. After declining Cameroon 3.1 Guinea 3.1 from 3.9 in 2011 to 3.4 in Liberia 3.1 2014, Ghana’s CPIA score Madagascar 3.1 rebounded to 3.6 in São Tomé and Principe 3.1 Congo, Democratic Republic 3.0 2015, thanks to tangible Congo, Republic 3.0 improvements in several Togo 3.0 Gambia, The 2.9 policy areas, including Zimbabwe 2.9 monetary and fiscal Chad 2.8 Comoros 2.8 management, property Central African Republic 2.5 rights and ruled-based Guinea-Bissau 2.5 Sudan 2.4 governance, quality of Eritrea 1.9 budgetary management, South Sudan 1.9 and efficiency of tax policy. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Better availability of data Source: CPIA database. and information, coupled 6 with implementation CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2015 FIGURE 3 of economic policies 0.3 The number of under the International Below SSA average Above SSA average Change in overall CPIA Score, 2014-2015 Sub-Saharan Monetary Fund’s Staff 0.2 African Monitored Program, lifted ZWE GHA countries which saw a Zimbabwe’s CPIA score by 0.1 COM CAR TCD GIN NER decline in their 0.2 point. The country’s CPIA score 0.0 was nearly overall CPIA score has ERI ZMB NGA double that of risen from 2.2 in 2012 to -0.1 CMR TZA CPV the number of SSD MRT MOZ BFA 2.9 in 2015, a 0.7-point improvers -0.2 increase over three GMB BDI Falling behind Slipping years. Several countries -0.3 saw a 0.1-point increase 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 in their overall CPIA Overall CPIA score, 2015 scores. Among these was Source: CPIA database. Note: Fragile countries are in orange color Comoros, which posted improvements in debt policy and management, business environment, gender equality, property rights, and public financial management, all of which contributed to reverse the 2014 decline in the country’s CPIA score. Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea, and Niger also saw stronger policy performance, which helped boost their CPIA score. In 2015 there was an uptick in the number of countries that experienced a weakening in their overall quality of policies. For 12 countries, there was a deterioration in their CPIA score, with Burundi and The Gambia (both fragile countries) seeing the sharpest decline.3 The improving trend in Burundi’s policy environment reversed sharply, with the country’s CPIA falling from 3.3 in 2014 to 3.1 in 2015. The slippage in the country’s quality of policies and institutions was broad-based, with declines in monetary and fiscal policies, debt management, property rights, budgetary and financial management, and accountability. The Gambia continued to see further weakening of its policy framework: the CPIA score fell from 3.1 in 2014 to 2.9 in 2015, and is well below the score of 3.5 in 2011. Several policy areas deteriorated further this year, including monetary and fiscal management, financial sector, equity of public resource use, environment, and quality of public financial management. Elsewhere, the declines were more modest, with over one-fourth of the region’s IDA countries posting a reduction of 0.1 point in their overall CPIA scores: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Eritrea, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Zambia. The decline in Zambia’s score to 3.3 resulted from weaker performance in all three components of the economic management cluster. The drop in Mozambique’s score to 3.5 was caused by reductions in its monetary and debt policies as well as a decline in accountability. South Sudan continued to deteriorate further, and its CPIA score dipped to 1.9 in 2015 from 2.0 in 2014. South Sudan experienced reductions in many areas this year, including the economic management and governance clusters. The country’s bleak performance underscores how conflict and fragility can stall or reverse development. 3 Fragile countries refer to “Fragile Situations” that are defined as having: either a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or b) the presence of a UN and/or regional peace-keeping or peace-building mission during the past three years. Only IDA-eligible countries and non- member or inactive territories/countries without CPIA data are included in the group of Fragile Situations. Details are in Appendix B. 7 A few countries notched FIGURE 4 Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–15 improvements in key policy Although 3.9 areas, but these did not regional cluster- level scores 3.7 translate into an increase in remained these countries’ aggregate broadly 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 score. For example, Côte unchanged, CPIA score 3.3 d’Ivoire, which saw four there was 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 divergence in 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 consecutive years of country-level 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 strengthening CPIA scores performance 2.9 2.9 2.9 within clusters, (2011-14) because of wide- especially in 2.7 ranging policy reforms, did economic 2.5 not post an increase in its management 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CPIA score in 2015, despite Cluster A: Economic management Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion and equity a stronger performance in Cluster B: Structural policies Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions equity of public resource use Source: CPIA database. (a component of Cluster C). The flat regional trend in the overall CPIA score was underpinned by broadly unchanged cluster-level scores (figure 4). Yet, there was substantial diversity in country-level performance within the clusters and in policy components. This was especially the case for the economic management cluster, in which there was continued weakness in the quality of the macroeconomic policy framework in several Sub-Saharan African countries. Unsurprisingly, a more difficult external environment and reduced policy buffers heightened economic vulnerabilities in several countries. In some cases, domestic difficulties adversely impacted policy performance. Overall, 13 countries experienced a decrease in their economic management score: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, The Gambia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Togo, and Zambia. In a positive development, a few countries (seven) bucked the weakening trend and posted increases, including Ghana. At the regional level, the quality of fiscal policy continued to deteriorate, and monetary and exchange rate policy performance weakened as well. The latest assessments indicate that the encouraging trend in governance (the public sector management and institutions cluster) seen in 2014 has stalled. Nearly one-fourth of the countries (nine) saw a strengthening in this category in 2014, but only seven had increases in 2015. At the same time, six countries saw a reduction in the governance score in 2015, compared with four countries in 2014. Given that the governance cluster score lags all others, this slower pace of improvement is concerning. Among the gainers in 2015, Ghana and Comoros experienced score increases of 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Gains in the quality of public financial management, coupled with property rights and rule-based strengthening, 8 CPIA Scores, by Cluster CPIA Scores and by Clusters andCountry Group, Country Groups, 2015 2015 FIGURE 5 4.0 Non-fragile 3.8 countries in Sub- 3.6 3.6 Saharan Africa 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 have comparable 3.4 3.3 3.3 scores to non- 3.2 fragile countries 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 elsewhere. But 2.8 the region’s 2.6 2.6 fragile countries 2.4 continue to lag 2.2 fragile countries outside the 2.0 region, especially Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA on governance Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural polices Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions Overall CPIA Source: CPIA database. led to the upgrade of the governance cluster in both countries. A handful of countries—Chad, Guinea, Madagascar, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe—saw an improvement of 0.1 point. Among countries that experienced a setback, the decline in performance was particularly evident in Burundi and South Sudan, where the escalation of violence, corrupt practices, and political and ethnic conflict has made already weak public institutions opaque and unaccountable, and citizens vulnerable and at risk. There were fewer country-level movements in the other clusters. For example, in the structural policies cluster, a few countries experienced a deterioration in financial sector performance. In the social inclusion and equity cluster, there were signs of improvement in the quality of environmental policies (in some cases because of better information), but there were a few instances of slippage on gender equality. The latest CPIA results show that the average score for Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA countries is now similar to that of all IDA countries—that is, a score of 3.2. This development reflects a small decline in the average score of all IDA countries, largely due to weaker performance of the economic management cluster. As in recent years, the region’s non-fragile countries have comparable scores to non-fragile countries elsewhere (figure 5). At the same time, Sub-Saharan Africa’s fragile countries continue to lag fragile countries outside the region, especially on governance. Overall, Sub-Saharan Africa’s regional CPIA score remains slightly below that of other IDA countries. 9 Analysis of CPIA Components CLUSTER A: ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT The quality of monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt policies is covered under this cluster. A more difficult economic landscape put pressure on fiscal and external balances, complicating economic management in many Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015. More than one-third of the region’s countries (13) saw a slippage in their economic management score, up from 11 countries in 2014: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, South Sudan, The Gambia, Togo, and Zambia (table A.1). Not surprisingly, several of the countries with a deterioration in this policy cluster are commodity exporters. Often, countries experienced a decline in more than one policy area, reflecting the interconnected nature of economic management. A few countries (Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Ghana, Mali, and Zimbabwe) saw an improvement in this score, thanks to efforts aimed at restoring macroeconomic stabilization. Overall, the regional score for the economic management cluster remained broadly unchanged at 3.3, despite weaker performance on monetary and exchange rate and fiscal policies (figure A.1). Table A.1 Changes in Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2015 Monetary and Debt Policy and Change in Scores Fiscal Policy Exchange Rate Policies Management Central African Republic, Increases Ghana, Zimbabwe Chad, Comoros, Mali Ghana, Zimbabwe Burkina Faso, Burundi, Burundi, Malawi, Mauritania, Burundi, Cameroon, Decreases Mozambique, Nigeria, South Nigeria, South Sudan, The Congo, Republic, Lesotho, Sudan, The Gambia, Zambia Gambia, Zambia Mozambique, Togo, Zambia Source: CPIA database. Monetary and Exchange FIGURE A.1 Trend in Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–15 Rate Policy Fiscal policy 3.7 continued to This component covers the weaken, and 3.5 the score of quality of monetary and exchange monetary and 3.3 rate policies in a coherent CPIA score, 2015 exchange rate macroeconomic policy framework. policy also 3.1 edged down The regional score for this policy 2.9 fell 0.1 point to 3.4 in 2015, and is 2.7 below the score of 3.6 achieved 2.5 during 2009 and 2012. Seven 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 countries saw a reduction in their Monetary and exchange rate policy Fiscal policy Debt policy score, and only two countries Source: CPIA database. posted an increase. 10 External positions weakened in 2015. In many cases, the deterioration in the current account deficit led to falling reserves and substantial currency depreciations. Reserve levels fell across the region, most markedly among oil exporters and in countries defending fixed exchange rates (Burundi, Nigeria, and Rwanda). Monetary authorities in countries with a flexible exchange rate regime responded to the pressures on exchange rates by letting currencies depreciate (Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda), and by tightening monetary policy through an increase in reserve requirements and policy rates to contain inflationary pressures. The pass-through of nominal exchange rate depreciation, compounded by the impact of drought on the food supply and the removal of fuel subsidies, contributed to a rise in inflation in several countries. However, in some oil-importing countries (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) inflation eased, reflecting strong external disinflationary pressures from lower food and oil prices. Inflation also remained low in the CFA franc zone countries, where the currency has remained relatively stable thanks to its peg to the euro. The countries with reductions in their CPIA scores are Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, The Gambia, and Zambia. Nigeria faced a challenging context for monetary and exchange rate policy in 2015. The slide in crude oil prices put downward pressure on the naira. The authorities responded in February 2015 by closing the official window for subsidized foreign exchange and moving interventions to the interbank market. This unified the official exchange rate with the interbank market rate, and allowed the naira to depreciate effectively by 14 percent. However, pressure on reserves continued as the oil price slipped further, and a large gap opened up between the official and unofficial exchange rates. The central bank subsequently introduced a series of administrative controls on foreign exchange transactions. In the face of dwindling reserves, the monetary authorities in Burundi also introduced exchange controls to support the currency, shifting foreign currency demand to the parallel market. In Zambia, monetary policy was not effective in achieving price and exchange rate stability, because of loose fiscal policy. In The Gambia, an overvalued exchange rate contributed to the worsening of the current account deficit and exacerbated financing difficulties. In a few countries, monetary and exchange rate policy was strengthened. In Ghana, the central bank was responsive to the challenging macroeconomic situation in 2015. The monetary authorities adjusted the policy rate by 500 basis points, from 21 percent in January to 26 percent by December 2015, with the aim of stabilizing inflation and the exchange rate. Headline inflation remained elevated in 2015, but rose at a decreasing rate (mainly in response to the continued pass-through effect of utility and petroleum price increases). The government agreed to and implemented a zero limit on gross credit to the government from the central bank, and actually reduced its reliance on central bank financing in 2015. For Zimbabwe, the higher score reflects continued successful implementation of the International Monetary Fund Staff- Monitored Program (IMF SMP). Fiscal Policy This component assesses the stabilization and resource allocation aspects of fiscal policy. Fiscal challenges deepened in 2015, and fiscal positions weakened across the region. Fiscal outcomes in recent years have been generally weaker than in the pre-global financial crisis period (figure A.2). Overall, the regional fiscal policy score decreased by 0.1 point to 3.1 in 2015, the lowest level since 2006. Seven countries—mostly fragile or resource-rich countries—have lower scores; there was strengthening in this policy area in only three countries. 11 FIGURE A.2 Fiscal Balance in Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2007–08 and 2014–15 Fiscal outcomes 20 in recent years Overall fiscal balance (% of GDP) are worse 10 than those 0 registered -10 before the global financial -20 crisis -30 -40 Eritrea Ghana Burkina Faso Senegal Liberia Malawi Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Mauritania Kenya Mali Burundi Zimbabwe Mozambique Madagascar Comoros Tanzania Uganda Sudan Togo Zambia Cabo Verde Congo, Democratic Republic Côte d'Ivoire Rwanda The Gambia Central African Republic Benin Niger Guinea Nigeria Chad Cameroon Sierra Leone Lesotho Congo, Republic 2007-08 2014-15 Source: World Economic Outlook, 2016 Several countries faced severe challenges and growing fiscal imbalances. Among these were fragile countries such as Burundi, South Sudan, and The Gambia. Burundi’s political crisis adversely impacted government revenues and grants, placing significant pressure on the fiscal budget. In The Gambia, consolidation efforts initiated in early 2015 were overturned by fiscal slippages, including delays in programmed spending cuts in the second quarter of 2015. On the revenue side, collection began to slow in May 2015, as the overvalued exchange rate reduced the imports tax base for import duties and value-added tax, and affected grants allocated for budget support and project financing. In Malawi, weak fiscal discipline undermined macroeconomic stability. Rising debt service costs, increasing wage demands, costly subsidy schemes, and the need to settle outstanding arrears continued to fuel a large fiscal deficit. With the government simultaneously recording increases in expenditures and decreases in receipts, Malawi’s fiscal position came under significant stress in fiscal year 2014/15. Development expenditures were cut and there was a large increase in domestic borrowing, which in turn pushed the country’s Extended Credit Facility program with the IMF off track. High reliance on commodity-based revenues precipitated deep budgetary challenges in several commodity exporters. For example, Nigeria’s budgetary woes reflect exceedingly low non-oil tax revenue. In recent years, non-oil tax revenues have accounted for a mere 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With both oil prices and output significantly lower, revenue shortfalls emerged in 2015, despite conservative budgetary planning. In Zambia, static revenues and growing expenditures translated into a sharp deterioration in the fiscal deficit in 2015. A sharp increase in the cost of servicing interest on external debt (partly driven by the depreciation of the national currency and the nonconcessional nature of external debt contracted in recent years), an increase in fuel subsidies, and emergency power imports underpinned the higher deficit. In Mauritania, there was limited progress on strengthening fiscal policy. Fiscal consolidation efforts in the face of persistent terms-of-trade shock have not been adequate, resulting in a deterioration of the fiscal position in 2015. In South Sudan, falling oil prices and stagnating production sharply curtailed fiscal revenues. Nonetheless, the fiscal response to offset the effect of the contracting oil sector on the economy through expenditure rationalization and non-oil domestic revenue mobilization was limited. At the same time, external aid continued to decline 12 because of the security crisis in the country. These shocks put significant pressure on the government budget, and the growing deficit was financed by domestic borrowing, mainly from the central bank. Despite difficult economic conditions, a few Sub-Saharan African countries improved their fiscal performance in 2015. Notable among these was Ghana, where fiscal policy (under the IMF program) was aimed at restoring macroeconomic stability. The government made progress in implementing its fiscal consolidation strategy, as reflected in a near halving of the fiscal deficit from 10.2 percent of GDP in 2014 to 5.4 percent by end-October 2015. The progress on the fiscal account reflects relatively good tax and nontax revenue performance on the one hand, and a reduction in expenditure on the other hand. Elsewhere, commitment to fiscal prudence helped Zimbabwe meet the targets of its IMF SMP. Progress was also made by the Central African Republic, which is rebuilding following a political and security crisis that started in 2013. A flare-up of violence in September 2015 weighed down economic growth and put public finances under great pressure. The fiscal deficit has been addressed through ad hoc measures, including tax control and comprehensive wage cuts, in addition to critical reforms at the revenue-generating departments and the treasury office. Importantly, the authorities established an adequate reserve to meet spending priorities. Debt Policy This component assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensure medium-term debt sustainability and minimize budgetary risks. The component covers (a) the extent to which external and domestic debt is contracted with a view to achieving/maintaining debt sustainability; and (b) the effectiveness of debt management functions. Deteriorating fiscal balances have translated into rising indebtedness across Sub-Saharan Africa. Borrowing to support fiscal deficits since 2009, including through domestic markets and Eurobond issuance, has driven a net increase in public debt for all countries except oil exporters, which have benefitted (until recently) from buoyant commodity prices, and fragile states receiving post-2008 Highly Indebted Poor Country relief. In 2015, some oil exporters saw an increase in their public debt/ GDP ratio, exceeding 15 points in the case of the Republic of Congo. The increase in debt burdens was more moderate in non-energy mineral-exporting countries, with the exceptions of Niger, Sierra Leone, and Zambia, where the public debt/GDP ratio rose by more than 10 percentage points. Elsewhere, this indicator was sharply higher in Mozambique and continued to climb in Ethiopia; and Kenya and Tanzania saw their debt levels increase by 5 percentage points on average. In several countries, the increase in government debt reflected rising infrastructure spending that should support potential growth over the medium term. In some cases (such as Tanzania), exchange rate depreciations also contributed to the rising debt levels. Overall, debt ratios in 2015 were well above the levels in 2011–13 (figure A.3). Rising indebtedness, combined with unfavorable external conditions, is raising the specter of future debt sustainability problems. According to the results of the latest debt sustainability analysis, there has been an uptick in the number of low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that are considered at moderate and high risk of debt distress (figure A.4). Indeed, nine (26 percent) of 35 Sub-Saharan African countries are at high risk of debt distress, with Cameroon, Ghana, and Mauritania recently added to this category. The other six countries in this category are Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Sudan. Meanwhile, the number of countries at low risk of debt distress declined from 12 in 2014 to seven (or only 20 percent) in 2015. 13 FIGURE A.3 140 Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP) There has been an 120 Average 2011-13 2015 increase in 100 countries’ debt burdens. 80 Ratios are well above those 60 registered in 2011-13 40 20 0 Sudan Congo, Republic South Sudan Chad Nigeria Cabo Verde The Gambia São Tomé and Príncipe Mauritania Ghana Zimbabwe Togo Mozambique Kenya Senegal Lesotho Guinea-Bissau Sierra Leone Niger Mali Central African Republic Zambia Liberia Guinea Tanzania Madagascar Benin Uganda Côte d'Ivoire Burundi Burkina Faso Rwanda Cameroon Comoros Ethiopia Congo,Democratic Republic Oil-resource- rich countries Non-resource-rich countries Source: Africa’s Pulse. April 2016, Volume 13. World Bank, Washington, DC. In 2015, the quality FIGURE A.4 Evolution of Risk of Debt Stress over Time of debt policy The number 40 of low-income and management countries in 35 deteriorated in seven Sub-Saharan 9 7 7 9 countries, while 30 12 11 Africa that are 14 Number of countries considered at 17 improving in only three. 25 “moderate” In the former group are and “high” risk 20 13 16 16 of debt distress 10 11 Burundi, Cameroon, 11 19 has increased 15 8 Lesotho, Mozambique, 10 Republic of Congo, Togo, 13 13 13 12 12 and Zambia. In Burundi, 5 10 10 7 rising domestic public 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 debt combined with a Low Moderate High very low export base Source: International Monetary Fund and World Bank continued to weigh Note: Cut-off for data is March 18,2016 on debt vulnerability. Signs of significant accumulation of domestic arrears and growing delay in the payment of current expenditures, including salary payments, contributed to the weakening of the debt policy score. Although the country has adopted a debt management action plan, its implementation remains slow. In Cameroon, the latest analysis of debt sustainability shows a marked deterioration in the country’s debt dynamics, moving the country from moderate risk of debt distress to high risk. The acceleration in the accumulation of debt since 2013, increasingly on nonconcessional terms, and the significant deterioration in the outlook for exports are the main causes of the higher risk rating. In addition, timely tracking of loan disbursements is inadequate, often leading to significant upward adjustments in external debt data. The 14 incomplete coverage of the contingent liabilities of state-owned enterprises is another shortcoming of Cameroon’s debt management: at the end of 2014, the payment arrears of these enterprises to the state was estimated at about 1.6 percent of GDP. The latest debt sustainability analysis also finds that the risk of debt distress for the Republic of Congo has shifted from low to moderate. The proportion of government service debt payments to revenue has grown rapidly, standing at 9 percent in 2014 compared with an average of 4.2 percent in 2013–14. Recorded domestic arrears continue to grow, and a planned audit of domestic arrears was not started. The deterioration in Mozambique’s debt policy scores is reflective of the increase in fiscal risks and contingent liabilities in the country. Under the most recent Debt Sustainability Framework (prepared in November 2015), Mozambique remains at moderate risk of debt distress, but risks were heightened significantly following the sharp decline of the metical against the dollar. This has significant implications, as over 85 percent of the debt was denominated in foreign currency in 2015. The increase in public investment activity through public enterprises and private companies with significant government shareholdings, as well as public-private partnership arrangements, increases fiscal risks through heightened exposure to contingent liabilities. These events highlight the need to improve the monitoring and reporting of contingent liabilities. In Zambia, higher fiscal deficits and a rapid rise in the stock of public debt have heightened public debt vulnerabilities, pointing to the need for better monitoring of the contingent liabilities of the public sector, particularly the operations of state-owned enterprises. Among favorable developments, three of the region’s countries saw stronger scores: Chad, Comoros, and Mali. Reforms to enhance debt management, coordination, and transparency underpinned the improvement in the scores in Chad and Comoros. In Comoros, a debt management strategy (including a report on the updated debt position) was prepared by the debt management directorate and included in the 2015 budget for the first time. In Chad, the regulatory framework for debt management was reinforced, thanks to a decree that was issued in June 2015 aimed at strengthening the organization and roles of the inter-ministerial committee for debt analysis and its associated technical units. CLUSTER B: STRUCTURAL POLICIES Cluster B covers policies affecting trade, the financial sector, and the business environment. The regional average score for Cluster B was unchanged at 3.2 in 2015. There is considerable variation in scores across structural policies, with trade registering relatively stronger performance and that of the financial sector being lackluster. Trade The trade component assesses a country’s trade policy regime and trade facilitation. As in previous years, the CPIA scores for trade show remarkably little change in 2015. Only one country (Central African Republic) in the region registered an increase in the score for trade policy. Thus, the average trade score for the region remained at the 2014 level of 3.7. The regional and global context in which Africa trades is changing fast, providing new challenges, especially as commodity prices adjust, but also opening more opportunities for countries in Africa— including through the rise in importance of global and regional value chains, the growing importance of 15 trade in services, and the enormous scope to develop agribusiness exports. The policy environment is also changing. The “mega-regional” trade agreements that will integrate countries across the Atlantic and Pacific may make market access more difficult in traditional as well as some key emerging markets. But at the same time, African countries can pursue more favorable trade policy conditions through movement toward the Continental Free Trade Area, Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union, the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the World Trade Organization Bali agreement, and the benefits of implementing the Trade Facilitation Agreement. A key challenge facing many African economies is the need to diversify away from dependence on a narrow range of mineral and commodity exports. These products have driven strong growth in export receipts and underpinned strong economic growth in Africa for much of the period since 2000. However, the nature of this growth has delivered little in terms of jobs and sustained poverty reduction. This conjuncture in the global economy offers many African economies an opportunity to recalibrate the structure of their exports toward a wider range of products that can be more effective in delivering inclusive growth. To achieve this will require that African countries more effectively embrace economic policy reforms, including reforms that remove trade barriers. Among the key issues that need to be addressed are the high trade logistics costs and limited domestic competition that undermine the ability of African entrepreneurs to exploit new export opportunities. Africa’s infrastructure constraint is beginning to be addressed, but trade logistics costs remain high relative to other regions. In some cases, such as apparel, trade preferences can offset these high costs and are allowing new exports to emerge. But reducing trade costs will be essential to scale up and sustain these activities for long-term job creation and poverty reduction. Importing (materials, machinery, technology, knowledge, and skills) to export is essential to be able to enter modern value chains. Hence, attention must be given to reducing the costs to import as well as export, by rationalizing procedures, including electronic submission of documents, disciplining the use of permits and licenses, improving access to trade-related information, and increasing coordination between FIGURE B.1 CPIA Score for Trade, by Country Group, 2015 agencies involved in the trade The gap process. 4.0 4.0 between 4 3.9 Africa’s average 3.7 3.7 Competitive and efficient score for trade 3.5 input and output markets Trade score, 2015 and that of 3.3 East Asia has are essential to support trade not narrowed 3 development, but African in the past five markets lack competition. The years, with 2.5 fragile countries level of competition is lower performing in African countries than in worse than 2 competitors, and in many Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA Fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA SSA IDA East Asia Pacific comparable countries in cases a single firm accounts for other regions more than 50 percent of the market in key sectors, such as trucking services and fertilizer Source: CPIA database. distribution. 16 The CPIA measure of trade provides a perspective on how well African countries are rising to this challenge of deepening trade reforms. There was little change in the country-level scores for trade in 2015. Looking back to 2010, more than 70 percent of the countries in Africa have not registered a change in the score for trade. A slight increase in the score was registered for 20 percent of the countries, while 8 percent saw a fall in the score. This suggests that African countries have not taken advantage of the good times provided by high commodity prices to reform trade policies further and, thereby, provide a more conducive environment for export diversification and more balanced growth for the new environment of low commodity prices and stagnating global demand for traditional export products. The gap between Africa’s average score for trade and that of East Asia, the region that has most successfully integrated into the global economy over the past two decades and where trade has been a key driver of poverty reduction, has not narrowed appreciably over the past five years (figure B.1). Moreover, Africa’s fragile countries sharply lag comparable countries in other regions on trade policy performance. Financial Sector The financial sector component Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2015 FIGURE B.2 4.0 Non-fragile measures policies and regulations Financial sector score, 2015 3.5 African that affect financial stability, 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 countries have efficiency, and access. The region’s 3.0 2.7 seen higher 2.6 financial sector average score remained stable 2.5 scores than at 2.9 in 2015, with only a few 2.0 comparable countries seeing a pullback. The countries in 1.5 other regions regional score is on par with the 1.0 average for all IDA countries, Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA Fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA IDA Borrowers SSA IDA although non-fragile African countries have higher scores than comparable countries in other regions (figure B.2). Source: CPIA database. Although financial systems in Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA borrowers remained broadly stable at a low score, risk profiles have been affected by the more difficult domestic and international macroeconomic environments, often following years of significant financial sector growth and changes in banking structures with the emergence of pan-African banks. Overall, the region’s financial systems have significant headline capital adequacy ratios and liquidity buffers, but nonperforming loan ratios remain high in many countries, government exposures are often significant, and foreign currency liquidity became scarcer in several countries. Efforts to improve financial regulatory and supervisory regimes (including enforcement) continue, but progress toward complying with international standards is uneven. Most countries still do not implement effective risk-based supervision and are thus not well placed to identify risks at an early stage. Further and faster efforts are needed to ensure increased resilience as risks increase. Cooperation to improve supervision of cross-border banking groups is improving (for example, supervisory colleges were held for several large pan-African groups), but more systematic efforts are needed at the regional level (and information availability remains a constraint). The incipient efforts in a few countries to strengthen bank resolution and crisis management frameworks should be accelerated to ensure readiness to handle weaknesses that may emerge as a result of homegrown or international shocks. 17 Access to finance remained low across countries in Africa, but continued to improve steadily. The latest 2014 Findex data indicate that over a third of the adult population in 2014 had an account at a financial institution. Sub-Saharan Africa remains an exception in the global picture for mobile money. Almost a third of account holders in the region—or 12 percent of all adults—reported having a mobile money account. Within this group, about half reported having a mobile money account and an account at a financial institution, and half reported having a mobile money account only. Mobile money accounts are especially widespread in East Africa, and are developing rapidly in some West African countries (for example, Côte d’Ivoire). Financial intermediation continued to grow, but generally at a slower pace. The average ratio of credit to the non-financial private sector to GDP increased from 28 percent in 2014 to 29 percent in 2015. The ratio of banking assets to GDP reached 49 percent in 2014 for the entire Sub-Saharan Africa region. Since most financial systems are shallow and a large share of them focuses primarily on financing governments (via loans or investment in government bonds), small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) are typically left out. Some countries have managed to improve access to financial services for SMEs (notably Kenya, through provision of a wider set of products). Yet, the potential for improving access to this segment is large, and encouraging reform efforts toward this agenda should be accelerated. Banks generally reported stable profits in 2014, partly due to competitive power, but largely driven by the need to compensate for huge operating costs. In several countries, spreads remain the focus of attention of policy makers that want to ensure broader access at more affordable rates. Only a handful of countries have noticeable financial markets beyond lending (insurance, pensions, and capital markets), following the bank-centric model prevailing in the region. However, several reforms are in progress or getting started (including at subregional levels) that are expected to deepen markets in Africa (such as subregional capital market integration, pension reforms, and strengthened government debt management to create a benchmark yield curve). Financial system diversification remains a priority for most countries. The low average score of the financial sector points to the need for financial systems in Africa to continue to reform and improve. Increased attention needs to be paid to financial stability in a much more difficult economic environment, including measures to identify risks at an early stage, and have adequate powers to take action when a financial institution becomes distressed (including resolution regimes following the Financial Stability Board key attributes). More attention and efforts are needed to strengthen crisis preparedness and management. 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 business in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. The three subcomponents measured are (a) regulations affecting entry, exit, and competition; (b) regulations of ongoing business operations; and (c) regulations of factor markets (labor and land). The regional average score for the business regulatory environment in 2015 remained virtually unchanged at 3.1, tied with the average for all IDA countries (figure B.3). The flat regional trend reveals a homogenization in ratings for most Sub-Saharan African countries and overall an uneven movement in the three measured CPIA areas of business environment reforms. For the vast majority of countries in the region, the stagnant scores in 2015 reflect that (a) top reformers focused on quick-win reform areas 18 in business entry regulations in 2014/15, implementing fewer Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2015 FIGURE B.3 reforms in other areas of ongoing 4.0 The regional Business environment score, 2015 average score business operations such as 3.5 3.4 3.4 for the business operational licensing, permits, 3.1 3.1 regulatory 3.0 2.7 environment inspections as well as compliance 2.6 in 2015 is 3.1, systems related to paying taxes, 2.5 tied with the and getting electricity and 2.0 average for all IDA countries registering property; (b) the 1.5 distance to the frontier in many Doing Business indicators is still 1.0 Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA Fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA IDA Borrowers SSA IDA high for many countries, despite some improvements; and (c) in a few cases, some reforms were not implemented although they were Source: CPIA database. enacted (for example, Chad). Two countries recorded an increase in their score for the business regulatory environment—Comoros (2.5 to 3.0) and Niger (3 to 3.5). One country registered a decrease—Madagascar (3.0 to 2.5). Ghana, Rwanda, Senegal, and Uganda were the top regional performers, with scores of 4.0 or higher. The business regulatory environment in several fragile countries, such as the Central African Republic, Chad, and Guinea Bissau, remained weak, posting scores of 2.5 and below. Between 2014 and 2015, compared with other regions, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for the largest number of regulatory reforms for business environment. Among the enacted reforms to reduce the complexity and cost of regulatory processes, those in the area of starting a business were the most common, as in the previous year. Member countries of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa were particularly active: 14 of the 17 economies implemented business regulation reforms in the past year. Twenty-four of the reforms reduced the complexity and cost of regulatory processes, and five strengthened legal institutions (box B.1). In recent years, substantial regulatory reform efforts have been undertaken by the 17 member states of the BOX B.1 Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, known by its French acronym OHADA. Among Regulatory other things, the organization has encouraged member states to reduce their minimum capital requirements. Reforms in OHADA Four member states passed national legislation to this effect in 2013/14. Seven did so in 2014/15, resulting in Countries substantial decreases in the capital required. The Democratic Republic of Congo reduced its minimum capital requirement from 500 percent of income per capita in 2014 to 11 percent, and Burkina Faso reduced its requirement from 308 percent of income per capita to 29 percent. OHADA also recommends that national governments eliminate the requirement for the use of notaries in company registration. The majority of member states have followed this recommendation, allowing companies to register at a one-stop shop online or in person, without the need to use a notary. But many entrepreneurs in OHADA economies still prefer to solicit notary services, out of habit and to ensure that the registration process runs smoothly. As experience in other economies shows, the practice of using notaries can be deeply rooted in the start-up process and business habits can take time to change. 19 Globally, five of the top 10 countries that implemented the most regulatory reforms in 2015 were from Sub-Saharan Africa: Benin, Kenya, Mauritania, Senegal, and Uganda. All implemented reforms aimed at improving company registration processes, with additional reforms in the areas of paying taxes, getting electricity, and registering property. Senegal (with four reforms) and Benin (with three) joined the list of top improvers for the second year in a row. Mauritania eliminated the minimum capital requirement, while Senegal lowered it. Uganda introduced an online system for obtaining trading licenses and reduced business incorporation fees. Benin and Uganda reduced business incorporation fees. The five countries also introduced changes in other areas—for example, reducing property transfer procedures by improving electronic document management at the land registry, and introducing a unified form for registration (Kenya). FIGURE B.4 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business Indicators, 2015 100 90 81 80 75 DTF (1-100, maximum is 100) 70 65 67 62 60 57 59 55 55 50 52 50 48 48 50 46 48 45 43 41 40 33 Sub-Saharan 30 28 28 African countries still 20 lag in the distance to the 10 Overall Distance Starting a Dealing with Paying taxes Registering Enforcing Trading across Getting Protecting Getting credit Resolving frontier across to Frontier business construction property contracts borders electricity minority insolvency all Doing permits investors Business Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Non-Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries indicators, Source: Doing Business Indicators, 2016. and there is considerable FIGURE B.5 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business, by Country, 2015 variation in 100 distance from the frontier 90 DTF (1-100, maximum is 100) among them 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Eritrea South Sudan Central African Republic Congo, Democratic Republic Chad Liberia Guinea-Bissau Congo, Repubic Cameroon Nigeria Mauritania São Tomé and Príncipe Guinea Madagascar Niger Sudan Benin Zimbabwe Comoros Senegal Burundi Gambia, The Togo Sierra Leone Ethiopia Mali Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Malawi Tanzania Mozambique Cabo Verde Uganda Lesotho Ghana Kenya Zambia Rwanda Source: Doing Business Indicators 2016. Note: Fragile countries are in red color 20 Overall, Sub-Saharan African countries, in particular West and Central African countries, have shown a trend of successfully implementing business registration reforms, compared with the more complex reforms pertaining to land and property registration (with the exception of some countries that regularly improve in that area—Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda). Across the region, Rwanda has the highest global ranking (62) after Mauritus. Rwanda has implemented the largest number of reforms in the region, with six reforms carried out in the past year. The country ranks second in the world on the Getting Credit indicator and 12th on the Registering Property indicator. Ten years ago, it took an entrepreneur in Rwanda 370 days to transfer property. Now it takes 32 days, which is fewer than in Germany. But the region still lags in the distance to the frontier across all Doing Business indicators, and there is considerable variation in distance to the frontier across the countries in the region (figures B.4 and B.5). CLUSTER C: 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 2015, continuing the flat trend observed since 2012. 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. The average score for this category has remained at 3.2 since 2005, reflecting not only the large gender inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also the difficulty of changing norms about gender. The average performance on the human development aspects of gender equality is lower than performance on the economic opportunity and legal protection aspects. However, within individual countries there is remarkably little difference in performance across the three areas considered for the gender equality section of the CPIA. For example, countries that score at the lower end of the spectrum for gender equality in human development tend to do similarly poorly on gender equality in economic opportunity and legal protection. This suggests that many of the gender challenges that countries face are interrelated, and that making progress in one area can help countries boost progress in other areas. If a country does not provide women equal access to education, it is unlikely that those women would be able to compete on an equal footing with men for scarce jobs; if a country does not protect women from discrimination in terms of gender-based violence or access to assets, it is not likely that those women would be able to start their own businesses or participate in society on an equal footing with men. The CPIA scores for gender equality highlight the negative impact of fragility and conflict. Eight of the 10 lowest-scoring countries on the gender component of the CPIA are fragile states: Central African 21 Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, South Sudan, and Sudan. The average score for all fragile countries is 3.0, compared with 3.4 for non-fragile ones. Fragile countries perform particularly poorly on human development indicators and providing equal protection for men and women under the law. This is not surprising, as fragility and conflict tend to disrupt access to basic social services and infrastructure and expose women to higher levels of gender-based violence, partly because of the collapse of justice and security institutions and partly because violence is sometimes used as a purposeful strategy by fighting forces. Men also suffer, as they are more likely to be forced into fighting and may face challenges reintegrating into society and the economy once the conflict is over. Box C.1 describes new evidence on policies that are helping women and men in fragile states. BOX C.1 There is a growing body of evidence on policies to address the gender-related constraints that women and Policies to men face in fragile states. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, an impact evaluation, supported by the Address World Bank and U.S. Agency for International Development (Bass et al. 2013), found that providing cognitive Gender-Related processing therapy to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence reduced participants’ probability Constraints in Fragile of depression or anxiety from 71 to 9 percent, reduced their probability of post-traumatic stress disorder Situations: from 60 to 9 percent, and improved their function-impairment from “moderate” to “little.” This evidence is Some New particularly exciting because this type of intervention can be implemented in settings of ongoing conflict, Evidence with few mental health professionals and high rates of illiteracy. For interventions targeting men, there is evidence that programs that address multiple constraints simultaneously can help reintegrate ex-combatants and prevent them from being re-recruited into fighting forces. In Liberia, an impact evaluation by Blattman and Annan (2015) found that providing ex-combatants with agricultural training, capital inputs, and counseling led to higher profits and reduced illicit and mercenary activity. In contrast, providing the training by itself (without capital) had a relatively small impact. Human Capital Development Over the past 15 years, the region has been rapidly closing the gender gap in enrollment at the primary level. Progress has been slower at the secondary level, where there is still an average female-to-male enrollment ratio of just 86 percent (up from 81 percent in 2000). This compares poorly with all other developing regions: over 100 percent in East Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, 98 percent in Europe and Central Asia, and 94 percent in the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia. One of the main issues behind girls dropping out of school after the primary level is early marriage and childbearing. Between 2000 and 2014, the average rate of adolescent fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa declined from 128 to 103 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19. However, this level of adolescent fertility is still much higher than the averages seen in other regions of the world: 23 in East Asia and the Pacific, 28 in Europe and Central Asia, 65 in Latin American and the Caribbean, 42 in the Middle East and North Africa, and 35 in South Asia. Across many countries in the region, girls and their families face social and economic pressures that push girls out of school and toward early marriage and childbearing. There is strong evidence that cash transfers can be effective at countering these pressures and keeping girls in school. In Malawi, Baird et al. (2010) found that a cash transfer, conditional on school attendance, increased girls’ attendance by three 22 to four times. Conditionality appears to be a key factor behind the success of programs in specifically targeting girls’ school attendance. An impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program in Burkina Faso showed that conditional transfers were significantly more effective than unconditional transfers at increasing the enrollment of girls and countering the tendency of families to focus their limited resources on boys’ education (Akresh, De Walque, and Kazianga 2013). Cash transfers have also been shown to reduce early marriage and childbearing, although for these impacts keeping transfers unconditional allows programs to reach the most vulnerable girls who may have already dropped out of school (Baird et al. 2010). These impacts are important given the challenges many African countries face with high population growth, which dampens the poverty-reducing impacts of economic growth. Access to Productive and Economic Resources Although women’s labor force participation is almost equal to men’s in many African countries, the types of economic opportunities available to women are quite different. Women are more likely to work in the informal sector, have less access to assets with which to start or expand their own businesses, and tend to be concentrated in occupations considered suitable for them according to prevailing social norms. Some of these issues will not necessarily recede automatically as countries become richer. For example, sex segregation in the labor market can be seen even in high-income economies, with women often underrepresented in science and technology jobs and overrepresented in care-giving jobs. This situation is suboptimal for society because it represents an inefficient allocation of human resources, and it has adverse implications for women because traditionally male-dominated jobs and sectors tend to have higher pay and profits. Emerging evidence for Ethiopia and Uganda, generated by the World Bank’s Gender Innovation Lab, suggests that women entrepreneurs are more able to cross over into higher- earning male-dominated sectors when they have access to information about the higher profits they could earn in those sectors and when they have a close male role model (Campos et al. 2014; World Bank 2015). This research is ongoing and could point to some possible policy directions for addressing occupational sex segregation and increasing women’s earnings. Equality and Status and Protection under the Law Women’s legal and social status influences the degree to which they are able to operate freely in society on a level footing with men. Africa continues to make progress at the level of national institutions, with the proportion of parliamentary seats held by women doubling from 12 to 24 percent between 2000 and 2015. On this indicator, Rwanda leads the world, with 64 percent of its parliamentary seats held by women. However, this progress does not speak to the constraints faced by the majority of women in African countries, with much lower female representation at lower levels of government, laws and customary practices that restrict women’s ability to inherit assets or make key household decisions, and high levels of gender-based violence. Equity of Public Resource Use This category 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. The measure focuses on three subcomponents: measurement issues; priorities and strategies, especially those related to the poor and vulnerable groups; and revenue collection, covering the incidence of major taxes, for example, whether they are progressive or regressive. The measurement subcomponent covers the extent 23 to which poverty measurement, FIGURE C.1 Average CPIA Score for Equity of Public Resource Use, monitoring, and evaluation by Country Group, 2015 For equity instruments exist, and the of public degree to which poverty-related 3.8 Equity of public resource use score, 2015 resource 3.6 use, the gap 3.5 information is made available to in scores 3.3 the public. between 3.2 fragile and 2.9 The average score for this overall 2.9 non-fragile country category was unchanged at 3.3, 2.6 groups with few countries recording continued to 2.3 changes. The gap in scores remain large 2.0 between fragile and non-fragile SSA IDA Fragile countries Non-fragile in SSA countries in SSA country groups continued to remain large (figure C.1). Côte Source: CPIA database d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe reported a 0.5-point increase in the score, from 2.5 to 3.0. The increase in the score for Côte d’Ivoire reflects the country’s efforts to conduct frequent household surveys, particularly the new ENV household survey, which was conducted in 2015, to monitor poverty and other socioeconomic indicators, and the finalization of the poverty analysis report “ENV 2015, Profil de Pauvrete (July 2015),” with poverty incidence and trends being made available on the INS website. The increase in the score for Zimbabwe reflects the country’s efforts to use poverty data in designing a proxy means test to target poor households, and also to assess the benefit incidence of public spending. Examples include the 2015 Health Public Expenditure Review, and the micro-data of the 2014 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey conducted by ZIMSTAT, which was made publicly available in April 2015. These efforts were in addition to conducting a public expenditure review of the primary and secondary education and health sectors to examine important themes of the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of public, household, and donor expenditures in 2015, as well as the rollout of results-based budgeting. Elsewhere, Cabo Verde and Gambia saw a decline in the score, from 4.0 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 3.0, respectively. The slippage in the score for Cabo Verde reflects the capacity gaps in line ministries to provide input indicators for the monitoring and evaluation framework. It also reflects that after 2014 several tax exemptions were abolished, resulting in increases in the value-added tax rate from 6 percent to the now national level of 15 percent. An important subcomponent of the CPIA criteria for equality of public resource use is that of measurement, which covers the extent to which poverty measurement, monitoring, and evaluation instruments exist, and the degree to which poverty-related information is made available to the public. One such measurement tool is the household survey, which is essential in the collection of socioeconomic data, which are used to understand the welfare of populations. Household surveys are especially critical in monitoring poverty. Data on consumption or income are necessary for determining the poverty status of households, and these data are collected using sample surveys that are representative of the population. Efforts toward reporting progress made on the World Bank’s twin goals—ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity—and the World Bank’s mandate to collect at least one consumption survey every three years have strengthened such efforts. As such, there are already some gains and more new 24 surveys are conducted now than ever before. Consumption Surveys, by Country MAP C.1 For the first time, More than half of the countries there have been some in Africa positive experiences in have recently Africa in the collection completed consumption of household survey Cabo Verde Mauritania surveys Mali data. Currently, about Senegal Niger Sudan Eritrea The Gambia Chad nine countries have Guinea-Bissau Guinea Burkina Faso Benin just completed or Sierra Leone Côte Nigeria Ethiopia d’Ivoire Ghana Central African South Sudan are conducting new Liberia Togo Cameroon Republic Somalia surveys, including Kenya Equatorial Guinea São Tomé and Príncipe Uganda Kenya Gabon Rep. of (2015/16), Lesotho Congo Rwanda Dem. Rep. of Burundi (2015), Mauritius (2016), Congo Tanzania Namibia (2014/15), Seychelles Comoros Nigeria (2015), Sierra 2007 and earlier Angola Malawi Zambia Leone (2015), Swaziland 2008 to 2011 2012 and later Mozambique (2015), and Togo (2015). No data Zimbabwe Madagascar Mauritius Namibia In addition, more than Botswana half of the countries in Swaziland South the region have recently Africa Lesotho completed consumption IBRD 42366 | JUNE 2016 surveys (map C.1). Also Source: Group, AFR shown Stats on this map do notteam, Budget, Performance Review This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Poverty imply, on the part of The World Bankand Equity Global Practice, World Bank. any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any & Strategic Planning see box C.2. General Services Printing & Multimedia endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The number of consumption surveys averages 40 for every five years for Africa. This is less than one survey BOX C.2 per country every five years. But stagnation in the number of surveys is not the only concern involving Coverage of consumption surveys. Another concern is uneven country coverage. An estimate of 40 surveys for 48 Consumption Surveys is countries in Africa might give the impression that one data point on consumption is available every five years Improving in for most countries. However, this is not the case. Between 1990 and 1999, 18 of 47 countries in Africa did not Africa conduct a single survey with consumption data that could be used for poverty monitoring (figure BC.2.1). Among the remaining 29 countries, 12 had only one data point. Thus, for an entire decade, nothing can be said on 30 of 47 countries in the region (66 percent of the total population) about changes in poverty or other indicators of well-being measured using consumption data. One positive development is that the coverage improved in 2000–09, so that there were only four countries without a single consumption survey during the period, but 20 countries had only one survey each during this period. Although the lack of consumption surveys is an obvious impediment to monitoring poverty, the problems with consumption surveys do not end there. Even when surveys exist, they may not be available or they may be of poor quality or not comparable with other surveys in the country. Further, there are cross-country comparability issues. Such problems make tracking poverty over time difficult. The literature on survey design documents multiple ways in which two surveys can be rendered non-comparable based on (a) representativeness of the survey sample, (b) seasonality, (c) reporting period, and (d) list of consumption items. 25 BOX C.2 Number of Poverty Data Points over 10-Year Periods in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2013 Continued 50 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 FIGURE BC.2.1 45 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 7 7 6 6 Coverage of 40 4 5 4 6 7 6 10 8 10 3 4 9 8 8 9 consumption 35 6 7 4 4 8 8 Number of countries surveys has 3 8 8 7 improved but is 30 9 11 12 14 14 uneven across 25 12 13 13 16 21 decades 20 18 25 24 24 15 21 26 20 19 10 18 18 18 16 15 15 5 12 12 8 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 1990-1999 1991-2000 1992-2001 1993-2002 1994-2003 1995-2004 1996-2005 1997-2006 1998-2007 1999-2008 2000-2009 2001-2010 2002-2011 2003-2012 2004-2013 No data point One data point Two data points (interval of 6 years or longer) Two data points (interval of 5 years or shorter) Three or more data points Source: World Bank compilation from the microdata library and Africa Poverty Report, World Bank. Therefore, although the frequency of data collection is a valid concern, given that there are still many countries in which only one or two surveys have been conducted in 25 years, the more serious shortcoming is that even most of the resulting consumption data are not comparable. A simple count of the number of surveys that FIGURE BC.2.2 Comparable Consumption Surveys per Country, 1990–2012 are comparable per country Lack of 7 from the past 23 years shows comparability 1990 2012 6 that there are two or more Consumption surveys per coountry, of consumption 6 surveys is comparable surveys in only 28 particularly 5 of 48 countries (figure BC.2.2). 1990-2012 severe in Sub- 4 3.8 This is the reason countries Saharan Africa 3.5 that appear to be data rich (or 3 have multiple surveys) are still 2 1.6 unable to track poverty over 1 time. World Average Sub-Saharan Africa comparable Statistical capacity describes a country’s ability to collect, analyze, and disseminate high-quality data about its population and economy. Good quality statistics are essential for evidence-based decision- making and for achieving better development results. Countries in fragile situations on average report lower statistical capacity compared with non-fragile countries. The statistical capacity indicator for Sub- Saharan African countries is 60 percent; it is about 51 percent for countries in fragile situations, and 64 percent for non-fragile countries.4 Although fragile countries have low statistical capacity on average, there has been progress since 2005 (figure C.2). 4 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 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 and/or publicly available. 26 Building Human Resources Statistical Capacity Statistical Capacity Indicator Indicator (SCI) (SCI) FIGURE C.2 The human development 70 The statistical component of the CPIA assesses 63 63 63 63 63 64 capacity 65 61 61 62 62 62 the quality of national policies 60 60 60 indicator for 58 59 59 59 Sub-Saharan and public and private sector 57 57 57 56 57 53 55 51 51 African 49 50 delivery in health and education. 50 46 47 46 46 47 countries is The human development CPIA 45 44 60 percent. Fragile countries score for Sub-Saharan Africa was 40 have shown unchanged in 2015 at 3.5. The gap 35 progress 30 since 2005 between resource-rich countries 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (score 3.3) and non-resource-rich Fragile countries in SSA Sub-Saharan Africa Non-fragile countries in SSA countries (score 3.6) remained Source: World Development Indicators. substantial, as did that between Note: The Statistical Capacity Indicator is based on a diagnostic framework that was developed to assess the capacity of a country’s statistical systems. The framework consists of three fragile countries (score 3.2) and assessment areas: methodology, data sources, and periodicity and timeliness (institutional framework has not been included in the calculation of the score). SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. non-fragile countries (score 3.8). Health The average score for the health component mirrors the flat trend of the human development CPIA score. With the exception of three countries, this trend is evident at the country level as well. The average CPIA score for the health component is 3.4, with over 65 percent of countries registering scores equal to or higher than a score of 3.5. Many countries now develop medium–term strategic plans (for example, five-year strategic plans for health sector development), but the unchanged scores reflect that countries are continuing to implement the same plan through the same system. The Ebola-affected countries have taken initiatives to strengthen their health systems to improve resilience to future such occurrences. Many countries still rely on survey data for information on service coverage, total fertility rate, and out-of-pocket payments. As these surveys are undertaken periodically with intervals of a few years, not all countries have annual updates of such information. For the same reason, impacts on service use and health outcomes from ongoing conflicts may not always be captured. Overall, the health component of the CPIA remained at 2014 levels. Countries with a low score are typically fragile and conflict-affected countries, such as the Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and South Sudan, featuring limited coverage of essential services, weak governance, inadequate health financing, and limited quality data to track progress. Fragility is a significant development challenge faced in Sub-Saharan Africa. Health outcomes in the region’s fragile countries are affected by low income and state fragility. Figure C.3 shows that the disadvantage in life expectancy, maternal mortality ratio, and under-five mortality associated with fragility is largest in low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by lower- middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and smallest in lower-middle-income countries outside Sub-Saharan African countries. The total fertility rate is the only exception, showing an opposite trend. This is likely because the benchmark is so high in low-income African countries, so that the effect of fragility shows more in more developed settings. Those countries with strong scores (Burundi, Cabo Verde, Ethiopia, and Rwanda) have shown particular focus on accountability and results, strong governance systems, and solid progress toward improving 27 FIGURE C.3 Health Outcomes by Income Category, Region, and Fragility The Life Expectancy Total Fertility Rate disadvantage in 80 6 Number of births per woman life expectancy, 70 5 maternal Number of years 60 mortality ratio, 50 4 and under- 40 3 five mortality 30 2 20 associated 10 1 with fragility 0 0 is largest in Low income-SSA Lower middle Lower-middle Low income-SSA Lower middle Lower-middle income-SSA income-non-SSA income-SSA income-non-SSA low-income countries in Non-fragile countries Fragile countries Non-fragile countries Fragile countries Sub-Saharan Africa. The Under-5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births exception is Maternal Mortality Ratio Under-Five Mortality Rate total fertility 800 120 Number of pregnant women death per 100, 000 live births rate, which 100 shows an 600 80 opposite trend 400 60 40 200 20 0 0 Low income-SSA Lower middle Lower-middle Low income-SSA Lower middle Lower-middle income-SSA income-non-SSA income-SSA income-non-SSA Non-fragile countries Fragile countries Non-fragile countries Fragile countries Source: World Development Indicators, 2016. health outcomes. Some of their flagship programs have played pivotal roles in improving health system performance and health outcomes. For example, Ethiopia has a government-led Health Extension Program that institutionalized community-based service delivery, expanding service coverage at a relatively low cost. Rwanda is known for its community-based health insurance, which provides financial protection from catastrophic health expenditure at the national scale. Burundi has a results-based financing program that pays service providers based on results that are critical for health outcomes (for example, the score for coverage of skilled attendance and facility quality), and enhances accountability for results. Inefficiencies in health financing systems continue to be an area of concern. In many countries, limited public sector commitment has been replaced by large out-of-pocket spending, low efficiency in resource utilization, and mismatch of resources with population needs. Figure C.4 shows a high correlation between CPIA scores and the share of public expenditure in total health expenditure. In the group with the highest score, the share of public expenditure is more than 60 percent; in the group with the lowest score, it is 25 percent. Admittedly, not too much should be loaded onto a single indicator. What is important behind this correlation is the extent of financial protection against catastrophic expenditure, ownership and leadership of government in the governance system, and efficient use of external assistance that tends to create fragmentation. 28 Education Public Expenditure Share of Total Health Expenditure, FIGURE C.4 The score for education by CPIA Health Component Score in 2015 Inefficiencies in remained at 3.5, the same health financing 70 as for 2014. There were few systems 60 continue to changes, with the exception of Public expenditure in total be an area of health expenditure (%) improved scores for Madagascar 50 concern. The and Sudan. Figure C.5 shows share of public 40 expenditure that nearly three-quarters in total health of Sub-Saharan African IDA 30 expenditure countries have an education is higher in 20 countries with score at or above 3.5. For these a higher CPIA countries, nearly 19 percent of 10 score in health 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 government expenditure is on Health score, 2015 education. Source: World Development Indicators, 2016 and CPIA database. Sub-Saharan Africa has made substantial strides in expanding Distribution of the CPIA score for Education, 2015 FIGURE C.5 education coverage in recent Nearly three- 17 quarters of decades, with average net 16 countries in primary enrollment increasing 15 Sub-Sharan from 56 to 79 percent in the 13 Africa have on Number of countries education CPIA past 20 years (World Bank 11 10 score of 3.5 or 2016a). While there is still work 9 higher to be done in improving access, 7 6 these advances are shifting 5 4 the focus onto improving 3 2 education quality alongside 1 access to education across the 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 region. Teachers are a crucial Education score, 2015 component of education Source: CPIA database. quality, with the difference between a good and bad teacher having been measured at up to a full year of student learning (Hanushek and Rivkin 2010). It has been shown that good teachers significantly improve students’ long-term outcomes, such as graduation rates, adult salaries, and teenage pregnancy rates (Chetty et al. 2014). At the same time, the quality of teachers in Africa falls short. Across six countries, the number of teachers who pass a minimum knowledge standard – 80 percent on a test of math and language – is fewer than one in six. Likewise, absenteeism from school exceeds 20 percent, and absenteeism from the classroom, conditional on being in school, is higher than 40 percent (World Bank 2016b). Clearly, these teachers are not helping students to realize their full potential. One important determinant of teachers’ ability to improve student learning is the training they receive. Despite the significant resources spent on teacher training programs in Africa, evidence for the small share of programs that have been evaluated is mixed, and current programs are often characterized as 29 outdated and over-theoretical. Teachers in Sub-Saharan Africa tend to enter pre-service training or begin classroom activity with low levels of education themselves, and transition into short, one-off in-service training courses centrally planned by the government on expedient topics such as the introduction of new curricula (Lauwerier and Akkari 2015). Yet, there are some successful examples of in-service teacher training in Africa, which offer hope to the large array of less effective programs (box C.3). As the drive to improve quality increases, it will be crucial to identify the political will and resources to reform teacher training and help teachers to help students to achieve their potential. BOX C.3 To shed light on the teacher training programs that are most effective in Africa, a recent study (Popova, Teachers and Evans, and Arancibia 2016) identified seven in-service teacher training programs in the region that have been the Quality of evaluated, measuring student learning outcomes. Education in Africa: What With such a small sample, one cannot draw strong conclusions. However, the combination of continued Seems to Work support (not just a one-off training session), accompanying resources, and an emphasis on practice and tailoring teaching to the level of learning of the student seems to be responsible for positive impacts on student learning (Evans and Popova 2015). For example, the Early Grade Reading Assessment program in Liberia, which trained teachers to use an initial reading assessment and then continually assess student performance, increased students’ reading comprehension by 0.79 standard deviation (Piper and Korda 2011). Another example is the Reading to Learn intervention, which improved literacy scores in Uganda by providing schools with local-language materials and training teachers to use these and conduct learning assessments, as well as providing them with regular mentoring (Lucas et al. 2014). At the same time, bringing quality training to scale will be a future challenge: a teacher training program in Uganda that was highly effective when the training was implemented by a social enterprise saw its positive impacts dissipate under a lower cost version that used government workers to implement the training (Kerwin and Thornton 2015). There are successful examples of in-service teacher training in Africa, which offers hope to the large array of less effective programs. As the drive to improve quality increases, it will be crucial to identify the political will and resources to reform teacher training and help teachers to help students to achieve their potential. Adapted from Popova, Anna, David K. Evans, and Violeta Arancibia, “Inside In-Service Teacher Training: What Works, and How Do We Measure It?” June 2016. 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. In Sub-Saharan Africa, given the low level of formal employment, pension systems and labor market insurance tend to be fairly modest. They generally cover a small share of the population—civil servants and those employed in the small formal sector. The main aspects of social protection in Africa are represented by safety nets (or social assistance), 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, there is a wide variety of experience with social safety nets—in some countries (such as Chad), these are nascent and still testing targeting and payment mechanisms while gradually expanding; in other countries (such as Ethiopia), these are highly developed operations that have a strong institutional framework and tried and tested delivery systems capable of scaling up when a shock occurs. The CPIA ratings follow this heterogeneity, with low scores for food insecure and conflict-affected countries, and higher scores for the more stable countries with stronger social protection systems. 30 Despite this 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. In particular, safety nets are placed high on governments’ agendas. The recent shocks of the Ebola epidemic and now the El Niño drought demonstrate the need for a national, scalable social safety net.5 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. Very gradually, there is an increasing representation of national poverty-targeted cash transfers (including in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Tanzania). To improve this continuum, further investigation is needed into the effectiveness of food distribution and emergency relief programs. Basic data on the number of beneficiaries reached and information about program outcomes are imperative to improve the design and coordination of programs, keep decision makers informed, and attract financial resources. Increasingly, impact evaluations are being undertaken, contributing to a growing body of evidence on safety net programs in Africa. There was almost no change in the CPIA ratings in this category between 2014 and 2015. On the positive side, there were no downgrades, even for countries experiencing conflict. On the contrary, two of the poorest countries, Chad and Guinea, increased their ratings slightly (from 2.5 to 3.0 in each case). In both cases, the government has put renewed priority on safety nets, developed a strategy, and scaled up the social assistance program. In Chad, a comprehensive and well-structured National Social Protection Strategy was approved in July 2015. The strategy is a cross-sector document that includes four main areas: (a) assistance or social aid to extremely poor households and individuals (transfers in cash or in kind, exemptions from fees, and grants); (b) social insurance and labor market policies; (c) food security and nutrition; and (d) social services such as health and education in support of marginalized groups. The strategy offers a concrete road map and a set of clear priority actions to reform the legal, institutional, and financial framework of the sector. The upgrade in ratings derived from improvements in the social safety net, which is now quite comprehensive and includes the following: (a) emergency response to a crisis situation; (b) access of poor households to basic social services; and (c) assistance to specific vulnerable groups such as orphans, widows, and disabled persons. Much of the social safety net system is funded by development partners; just over a quarter of total safety net spending in 2014 was funded by the government, although on a relatively stable basis. There are some coordination issues and inclusion errors that could be reduced with stronger institutional mechanisms. In Guinea, too, a National Social Protection Policy and a Safety Net Strategy are being developed with the support of development partners. The new strategies are expected to be ready and adopted by the government in 2016. After years of stagnation, social safety net expenditures—from the state budget and international development partners—increased significantly. This large scale-up reflects the government’s new priorities for the social sectors. The Government of Guinea achieved this progress despite the additional and severe pressure on the social safety net system caused by the Ebola crisis and the economic and social repercussions of the 5 The World Bank’s focus is on establishing safety net systems through which government and other development partners’ resources may be channeled. 31 disease’s diffusion, death toll, and changes in behaviors. The impact on the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable has been significant: 83 percent of households in regions affected by Ebola have seen their agricultural production capacities decline. The government’s post-Ebola Recovery Strategy highlights social services, including social protection, among the country’s development priorities. Safety nets are expected to play a central role as the main tool to strengthen resilience in communities affected by Ebola. Some existing safety nets, such as the cash-for-work component of the Productive Safety Nets project, proved to be an effective short-term response to the economic impact of the crisis. With the support of development partners, other safety net programs (school feeding programs, cash transfers, psychological support to children, and community mobilization) were implemented in communities affected by the virus to limit the current and long-term impacts of the Ebola epidemic. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability The environmental and natural resource management (ENRM) component of the CPIA relies on a standard scoring tool that measures (a) 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 (b) the strength of cross- cutting institutional systems, including the quality of the environmental impact assessment system, and a range of environmental governance factors, including access to information, participation, coordination, and accountability. The regional average CPIA score for ENRM in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.2. Individual country scores ranged from 2.0 to 4.0, with 70 percent of the countries (27 of 38) scoring either 3.0 or 3.5. Scores of 3.0 or 3.5 for this component generally indicate countries with relatively comprehensive environmental policies, but with gaps between policy and implementation. Although the regional average score has remained steady, the score increased in six countries in 2015, and decreased in one. The Central African Republic and Mali made modest improvements in environmental assessment, capacity building in line ministries, and planning for climate action, which allowed the score to move up from 2.0 to 2.5. Ethiopia’s score was upgraded in recognition of its relatively strong performance in several areas, including access to information and accountability, and water resources management. The Democratic Republic of Congo’s forest sector programs have initiated some action on accountability and indoor air pollution (through improved cook stoves), which pushed its overall score to 3.0. Togo and Zimbabwe have continued broad reforms of environmental systems and specific policies that have taken them to an overall score of 3.5. By contrast, Tanzania’s overall score declined to 3.5, pulled down by the poaching crisis affecting its protected areas. Despite few changes in final national scores, 13 of the 14 measures of institutional and subsector performance that contribute to the ENRM assessment show a steadily improving performance trend, but in most cases the gains were modest. Accountability showed the strongest improvement (six countries improved their rating and nine declined), despite remaining one of the lowest-scoring metrics overall. The two other lowest-scoring metrics, air pollution and water pollution, also showed steady improvement (three improved), as did the highest-scoring sector-specific metric, ecosystems & biodiversity (five countries improved, one declined). Management of renewable resources showed no net change (one country improved, one declined), and management of nonrenewable resources was the only metric to decline overall (by two countries, with one improving). 32 Relative performance across the 14 metrics was similar to previous years: u All the institutional measures except accountability (public access to information, participation, environmental assessment, and coordination) were within the top six performers by average score. The improvements in accountability saw it move from 13th position to 12th (despite improved performance in all three of the lowest metrics), but it remains a long way behind the other institutional measures. u Ecosystems & biodiversity management and climate change were again the best-performing sector- specific measures. u As in previous years, pollution-related measures performed poorly. Despite all showing steady improvement compared with 2014, water pollution, air pollution, and solid waste remained the only metrics with an average score below 3, alongside accountability. Despite some variation in spatial patterns for the individual performance measures, countries that perform well in some measures tend to perform well in others. Although there are a couple of lower-performing countries in West Africa, countries in Central Africa performed noticeably worse than those in the rest of the region. Overall, African countries have a narrow lead in performance Environment CPIA Score for 2015 and Adjusted FIGURE C.6 compared with International Net Savings (Latest Data) The Development Association (IDA) 30 environment CPIA is countries in the rest of the world. 20 correlated The average overall CPIA score for with adjusted 10 environment in African countries Adjusted Net Savings net savings, suggesting is around 0.1 point higher than 0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 that improved that for the rest of the world. The -10 environmental relative performance on the 14 management -20 is related metrics in Africa appears to follow to overall -30 a similar pattern as the rest of economic the world, with most institutional -40 sustainability measures doing well, but the -50 Environment score, 2015 accountability and pollution Source: Recent ANS versus raw 2015 scores for the 32 countries with ANS data, World Development metrics performing poorly on Indicators; World Bank staff estimates based on sources and methods in World Bank 2011. average. The region outperforms Note: Adjusted net savings (ANS) estimates are represented as a percentage of gross domestic product. Only countries with ANS estimates since 2010 were included. In most cases the estimate other IDA countries in most is from 2013; eight are from 2012, three from 2011, and four from 2010. For adjusted net savings, including particulate emission damage (percent of gross national income), ANS values are equal to individual performance metrics. net national savings plus education expenditure and minus energy depletion, mineral depletion, net forest depletion, and carbon dioxide and particulate emissions damage. The largest leads are across the institutional metrics and in biodiversity and renewable resources. The only metrics in which the region falls significantly behind other IDA countries are air pollution and more narrowly climate change. The environment CPIA results do not show any clear correlation with per capita gross domestic product, but are strongly correlated with governance measures (for example, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index). No systematic differences were found between countries with and without high dependency on mineral revenues. The environment CPIA is also correlated with adjusted net savings (ANS), suggesting that improved environmental management is related to overall economic sustainability (figure C.6). Countries with scores of 3.2 or higher are significantly more likely to have positive ANS (19 of 21 countries versus two of 11 countries with CPIA for Environment scores less than 3.2). 33 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. Public institutions play an important role in enabling development. Effective, accountable, and transparent institutions ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision making; strengthen the rule of law; enforce property rights; and ensure equal access to justice for all. They also help combat corruption, 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 and offers other benefits. The recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have fundamentally expanded the attention on building the capacities of institutions to encourage sustainable change.6 The call for positive change in Sub-Saharan Africa’s public institutions also comes from multiple stakeholders who demand better results and accountability. Businesses and citizens expect timely information and transparency, and expect that their voices will be heard in formulating policies. Taxpayers and the media demand higher predictability in public investment as well as the equitable use of public resources. To enhance democratic systems, civil society and community organizations demand accountability and the disclosure of assets by political leaders and those in government. Countries and regional entities facing the challenge of conflict, migration, extremism, and fragility within and across their borders and territories are demanding collective action to deal with the root causes of poverty and governance failures, and to address humanitarian situations. Despite the heightened policy and institutional efforts that led up to the SDGs (such as the facilitation of national dialogues on the impacts of the Millennium Development Goals, new regulations, and engagement of civil society in transparency enhancement efforts), the average governance ranking of Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015 is low. The score is 3.0 for the region’s IDA countries, compared with 3.2 for IDA countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, partly because of the protracted nature of conflict and fragility in many locations, such as the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes Region, and the Sahel, the rank of fragile countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is low, at a score of 2.6, compared with 2.8 for fragile countries outside the region. The average score for the region’s non-fragile countries is comparable to that of non-fragile countries elsewhere (figure D.1). There is diversity in performance across the components of the governance cluster. Efficiency of revenue mobilization leads all components, with an average score of 3.4 for the region, followed by quality of budgetary and financial management, with a score of 3.1. Scores for the other components are weak, especially for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (2.7). A similar pattern is evident when the results are disaggregated by country groups. For non-fragile countries, the highest average score is for efficiency of revenue mobilization (3.7) and the weakest average score is for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (3.0). For the region’s fragile countries, the comparable scores are 3.1 and 2.3, respectively. At 2.4, the performance on property rights and rule-based governance is also particularly weak in the region’s fragile countries. The quality of institutions in Sub-Saharan Arica’s 6 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.” 34 Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group FIGURE D.1 4.0 The average 3.7 governance 3.6 score for IDA 3.5 3.4 3.4 countries in 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 Sub-Saharan 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 Africa in 2015 2.7 2.7 is a low 3.0, 2.6 2.5 2.5 weighed 2.5 2.4 2.3 down by poor governance in 2.0 fragile countries 1.5 1.0 Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA Property rights and rule-based government Quality of budgetary and financial management Efficiency of revenue mobilization Quality of public administration Transparency, accountablity and corruption in public sector Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions Source: CPIA database. Note: SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. non-fragile group of countries is generally on par with that in non-fragile countries in other regions. But this is not the case for the region’s fragile countries, which sharply lag other fragile countries in transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector; property rights and rule-based governance; and quality of budgetary and financial management. All of these attributes, whether in fragile or non-fragile countries, are important for institution building and would require enhanced efforts to achieve a successful transformation in the region. Change in Cluster D Score in 2015 FIGURE D.2 The CPIA results for 2015 show Gains in the that gains in Cluster D slowed in Ghana Public Sector Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Public Management Comoros Sector Management Cluster, seven Cluster slowed Chad in 2015; seven countries saw improvements countries saw Guinea (compared with nine in 2014), improvements Madagascar from last and six countries saw a reduction Rwanda year and six in their public management countries saw a Zimbabwe average scores (compared with reduction four in 2014). Ghana experienced Eritrea an increase of 0.3 point in its Mozambique overall average score; Comoros Tanzania experienced an increase of 0.2; The Gambia and Chad, Guinea, Madagascar, South Sudan Rwanda, and Zimbabwe saw an Burundi improvement of 0.1 (figure D.2). -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Gains in the quality of public Source: CPIA database. financial management, coupled 35 with property rights and rule-based strengthening, led to the upgrade of the governance cluster in Comoros and Ghana. Upgrades in budget and financial management in Madagascar and improvements in property rights and regulations in Guinea account for the gains in governance scores (table D.1). Quality of Public Financial Management In 2015, the quality of public financial management saw three countries’ scores increase (Comoros, Ghana, and Madagascar) and four countries’ scores decrease (table D.1). Generally, financial management modernization efforts, guided by Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) and other reviews, aim to improve the data and information on budget execution for timely and accurate government policy making, for which automated information systems are implemented. Efforts have been made to strengthen independent audit and oversight entities, and to develop annual budgets with fiscal year forecasts, budget proposals, and previous year outcomes to facilitate accountable governance. Policy measures have also been taken to align expenditures to investment priorities, fulfill annual budget requirements, and chalk out a sustainable path for national development over the medium term. Efforts to improve the timeliness of the examination of audit reports by the legislature were also pursued. Improving the proportion of aid that is managed by the use of national procedures is also an area of attention, since many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (such as the Central African Republic and Rwanda) rely heavily on foreign assistance.7 Table D.1 Changes in Scores, by Indicator Number of Number of Countries with Countries with Indicators increases decreases increases decreases Property Rights and Comoros, Ghana, 3 1 Burundi Rule-based Governance Guinea Quality of Budgetary and Comoros, Ghana, Burundi, South Sudan, 3 4 Financial Management Madagascar Tanzania, The Gambia Efficiency of Revenue Chad, Ghana, 3 0 Mobilization Rwanda Quality of Public Administration 0 1 Eritrea Transparency, Accountablity and Burundi, Mozambique, 1 3 Zimbabwe Corruption in Public Sector South Sudan Source: CPIA database In Comoros, to strengthen financial management, the government approved the new harmonized budget classification and treasury cash plans, and operationalized a single treasury account, including for tax collection and customs services. Furthermore, there has been an improvement in the transparency of the management of the revenues from state-owned enterprises, and information is now readily available to decision makers. 7 The PEFA framework provides the foundation for evidence-based measurement of countries’ public financial management (PFM) systems. A PEFA assessment measures the extent to which PFM systems, processes, and institutions contribute to the achievement of desirable budget outcomes: aggregate fiscal discipline, strategic allocation of resources, and efficient service delivery. The framework assesses and reports on the strengths and weaknesses of public financial management, using 31 performance indicators that are disaggregated into 94 dimensions. The performance of each indicator and dimension is measured against a four-point ordinal scale from A to D. The highest score, A, is warranted if evidence clearly demonstrates that an internationally recognized level of good performance is achieved. The D score indicates that performance is below the basic level. See http://www.pefa.org for details. 36 Ghana extended the implementation of program-based budgeting to 33 ministries. Links between the individual programs and the policy priorities in different sectors were also established. The government continued to pursue the implementation of actions to prevent an uncontrolled accumulation of arrears, by introducing the commitment control module of the Ghana Integrated and Financial Management Information System, as well as establishing a contracts database to monitor contract implementation. Consequently, because of these and other measures, the country was able to reduce the deviation of actual expenditure from the original budget expenditures of the previous year. In Madagascar, budget links to policy priorities, fiscal reporting, and management were improved. The National System of Monitoring and Evaluation was adopted, in line with the National Development Plan priorities, which is a five-year strategy and reference framework for the budget. This year, the Ministry of Finance started to publish budget execution reports on its website. The government undertook considerable efforts to consolidate information on arrears, renegotiate with creditors, and improve monitoring. Revenue Mobilization Aided by a period of higher growth rates in Sub-Saharan Africa, reforms in policy and tax administration have yielded positive results, but not enough to meet the region’s accelerated development needs. With a score of 3.7, non-fragile countries in the region rank higher than non-fragile countries outside Sub- Saharan Africa (3.6), while fragile countries in the region are on par with those of fragile countries outside the region (3.1). A substantial portion of revenue now comes from corporate taxes in many countries. The ratio of corporate tax to total taxes in countries such as Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Rwanda, and Senegal (13 to 18 percent) is significantly higher than the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (8.5 percent) (OECD 2016). These encouraging results have been due to the implementation of several measures, such as introducing value-added tax (VAT) reforms, setting up revenue administration authorities, introducing electronic filing systems, deploying a bookkeeping system to track VAT, and reducing and promoting nontax reforms that alleviate the economic, demographic, and institutional constraints faced by taxpayers.8 During 2015, Chad, Ghana, and Rwanda made positive gains in their score for revenue mobilization. In Chad, the development of an integrated tax management system was completed, which eases the administration and collection of taxes and uses a unique tax identification number for reporting. To broaden the tax base, a census of taxpayers was conducted using GPS, and about 32,000 potential firm taxpayers have been identified. Currently, Chad has a narrow tax base of around 11,200 firms, of which approximately 250 are responsible for about half of all non-oil tax revenues. Furthermore, to increase taxpayer compliance and facilitate nondiscriminatory tax enforcement, the government has initiated the reform and simplification of the tax code and other fiscal procedures. In Ghana, the Large Taxpayers Office played a significant role in revenue generation. A new customs bill was passed by the Parliament that harmonizes and consolidates existing regulations into one legislation. VAT on financial services was introduced after overcoming stakeholder and operational challenges. Tax audits were carried out using risk assessment criteria to encourage compliance. Public education on tax issues was successfully promoted, whereby guidelines on filing tax forms were made available on 8 In recent years, Sub-Saharan Africa has recorded about 15 percent higher actual tax revenues relative to predicted values (the tax revenue index). For details, see “Tax Revenue and Tax Efforts across the World,” Tuan Minh Le, Blanca Moreno-Dodson, and Nihal Bayraktar, World Bank 2014. 37 the Internet and disseminated through newspapers, local television, and radio stations via talk shows in English and the main local languages. Rwanda’s modernization of its tax administration aimed at reducing the cost of compliance for citizens and businesses. Tax revenue collection also improved: the ratio of tax to gross domestic product (GDP) increased from 13.9 percent in FY2012/13 and 14.9 percent in FY2013/14, to 15.4 percent in FY2014/15. The authorities also made efforts to widen the tax base by working with government stakeholders such as district administrations, local governments, and cooperative agencies, and by using third-party information to identify taxpayers. An effort was made to roll out electronic billing machines to taxpayers (businesses). The sensitization of citizens and businesses on the use of existing online/electronic tax platforms was conducted, and the use of electronic filing was made mandatory for companies. As a result, more than 50,000 taxpayers filed their tax returns electronically in FY2014/15, compared with nearly 42,000 in FY2013/14. For the nontax revenue online system, the number of transactions made increased from less than 500,000 in June 2014 to 1.16 million in June 2015, as residents and citizens paid for public services like passports, visas, driving license fees, and resident permits. According to the latest Doing Business report, Sub-Saharan Africa needs to improve its tax payment systems. For example, it takes 309 hours per year for a firm to complete the paperwork and other formalities for paying taxes in the region, compared with 201 hours per year in East Asia and the Pacific. The number of tax payments per year is also high in Sub-Saharan Africa (39), compared with 25 in East Asia and the Pacific and 18 in the Middle East and North Africa (table D.2). Weak revenue collection is also a problem. Table D.2 Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems (Doing Business) Distance to Payments Time Region Frontier (DTF) (number per year) (hours per year) Sub-Saharan Africa 58 39 309 Latin America and Caribbean 63 30 361 South Asia 65 31 299 East Asia and Pacific 75 25 201 Europe and Central Asia 76 19 233 Middle East and North Africa 79 18 216 Source: Doing Business 2016, World Bank. Since effective revenue collection and management are integral to development in Africa,9 innovative efforts are needed to fill the huge revenue gap that can fund accelerated development. A new Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool has been developed to assess gaps and prepare a road map for the modernization of the tax administration system, to reduce the cost of compliance and enhance revenue collection, among other improvements (box D.1). This innovative system has been piloted in 9 See www.OECD.org/tax/rising for tax revenues as a key to economic development in African countries, and www.oecd.org for revenue statistics in Africa. 38 eight countries with positive results,10 and there is a need to mainstream its use in Sub-Saharan Africa to guide policy makers and tax administration experts in the improvement of institutional performance. Furthermore, the importance of domestic resource mobilization was stressed at the Third Financing for Development Conference (2015), which called on all parties to work together, collaborate, and crowd-in private sector finance to accelerate development.11 The Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool (TADAT) is a collaborative effort (by the European Union, BOX D.1 International Monetary Fund, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and World Bank Tax Group) that was designed to provide an objective assessment of tax administration. TADAT focuses on nine Administration Diagnostic key performance outcome areas that cover most tax administration functions, processes, and institutions. Assessment The assessment of these performance outcome areas is based on 28 high-level indicators that have between Tool one and four dimensions that together add up to 47 measurement areas. TADAT is particularly helpful in: (a) identifying the relative strengths and weaknesses in tax administration systems, processes, and institutions; (b) facilitating a shared view on the condition of the system of tax administration among all stakeholders (country authorities, international organizations, donor countries, and technical assistance providers); (c) setting the reform agenda, including reform objectives, priorities, initiatives, and implementation sequencing; (d) facilitating management and coordination of external support for reforms, and achieving faster and more efficient implementation; and (e) monitoring and evaluating reform progress by way of subsequent repeat assessments. TADAT focuses on the performance of the major national taxes: corporate income tax, personal income tax, value-added tax (or its indirect tax equivalent, such as sales tax), and pay-as-you-earn amounts withheld by employers (which essentially are remittances of personal income tax). Social security contributions may also be included in assessments where the contributions are a major source of government revenue and are collected by the tax administration. For details, see http://www.tadat.org/overview/overview.html. Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance and Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector A few countries saw changes in the scores for property rights and rule-based governance: three countries (Comoros, Ghana, and Guinea) experienced an increase, while there was a drop in Burundi. In addition, the score for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector dropped for three countries (Burundi, Mozambique, and South Sudan), while the score for Zimbabwe improved. The drop in scores in Burundi and South Sudan could simply be attributed to the escalation of violence, corrupt practices, and political and ethnic conflict in those countries, which has made already weak public institutions opaque and unaccountable, and citizens vulnerable and at risk. Transparency and effective judicial enforcement (which are closely associated key elements of the Cluster D indicator) need to be “radically” improved to 10 This tool has been used in Zambia (November 2013), South Africa (December 2013), Mozambique (March 2015), Malawi (May 2015), Côte d’Ivoire (June 2015), Madagascar (July 2015), Rwanda (August 2015), and Uganda (August 2015). Source: International Monetary Fund. 11 The Third Financing for Development Conference was held in Addis Ababa in 2015, to assess the progress made in the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration. At the meeting, more than 100 concrete measures were highlighted that draw on all sources of finance, technology, innovation, trade, and data to support mobilization of the means for a global transformation. The overall objectives were to (a) scale up efforts of the development community to help countries maximize their own resources; (b) continue to invest in helping countries develop policy environments to attract and manage greater financing flows; and (c) encourage everyone to engage the private sector and draw private sector finance to development. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/conference.html. 39 put a dent in corruption and build FIGURE D.3 Cluster D Changes between 2009 and 2015 trust in public institutions.12 Changes in 4.5 Cluster D As a way forward, institutional scores between 4.0 CPV change across CPIA Cluster D 2009 and 2015 indicate that the RWA has to be radically magnified by SEN GHA governance and 3.5 ETH taking advantage of the historic Cluster D score, 2015 public sector KEN LSO BFA MRT NER BEN TZA opportunity that places public performance CIV SLE ZMB MOZ of 15 countries 3.0 STPUGA MWI institutions at the heart of the in Sub- ZWE GIN LBR CMR MLI TCD GMB global development agendas, Saharan Africa TGO ERI NGA MDG COM BDI and the opening this provides improved, in 2.5 ZAR COG some cases for partnership, learning, and by substantial SDN CAF GNB 2.0 collaboration. Changes in Cluster amounts D scores between 2009 and 2015 1.5 indicate that the governance 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 and public sector performance Cluster D score, 2009 of 15 countries in Sub-Saharan Source: CPIA database. Africa improved, in some cases by Note: Fragile countries are in red color. substantial amounts (figure D.3). Among countries experiencing a large increase in the score were Zimbabwe (0.8) and Côte d’Ivoire and Chad (0.5); more modest gains were recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia (0.3). Seven countries (Comoros, Guinea, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo) improved their score by 0.2, while three countries (Kenya, Liberia, and Niger) saw a gain in the score of 0.1. This institution-building progress is positive and can offer lessons for accelerated development. However, to play the expanded role that governance and public sector institutions are called on to play in the successful implementation of the “transformation agenda,” public institutions will have to be strengthened at a much faster pace. And the scope will need to be much larger, to cover all countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (not just the 15 that demonstrated positive change). The expanded role will need to be modernized to facilitate the accelerated development called for by the SDGs, African Union Agenda 2063, and individual country plans. Because of the high level of attention given to collective actions during agenda setting, there is a unique opportunity for building institutions that harness good practices and share knowledge among policy makers on what works and how (for example, in tax administration, financial management, and service delivery). This will allow institutional transformation processes to gain added stimulus and direction, and help achieve the twin development goals of eliminating poverty and promoting shared prosperity. 12 At the recent Global Anti-Corruption Summit in London, the president of the World Bank Group outlined the notion of “radical transparency” to address the challenge of corruption. The meeting was an important political milestone in global efforts to confront corruption. Many countries made commitments to expose corruption within their public sectors and punish the corrupt and support those who have suffered from corruption. They agreed to review public procurement procedures to increase transparency. A commitment was also made to make the exchange of tax information easier to avoid tax haven problems. The countries also pledged to strengthen institutions of accountability in all branches of the state and work with other countries, civil societies, and international organizations to support the accelerated implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. http://www.gov.uk/government/topical event/anti-corruption-summit-london-2016. 40 References Akresh, R., D. De Walque, and H. Kazianga. 2013. “Cash Transfers and Child Schooling: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation of the Role of Conditionality.” Policy Research Working Paper 82, World Bank, Washington, DC. Baird, Sarah, Ephraim Chirwa, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Ozler. 2010. “The Short-Term Impacts of a Schooling Conditional Cash Transfer Program on the Sexual Behavior of Young Women.” Health Economics 19 (Suppl. 1): 55–68. Bass, J. K., J. Annan, S. McIvor Murray, D. Kaysen, S. Griffiths, T. Cetinoglu, and P. A. Bolton. 2013. “Controlled Trial of Psychotherapy for Congolese Survivors of Sexual Violence.” New England Journal of Medicine 368 (23): 2182–91. Blattman, C., and J. Annan. 2015. “Can Employment Reduce Lawlessness and Rebellion? A Field Experiment with High-Risk Men in a Fragile State.” No. w21289. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Campos, Francisco, Markus Goldstein, Laura McGorman, Ana Maria Munoz Boudet, and Obert Pimhidzai. 2014. “Breaking the Metal Ceiling: Female Entrepreneurs Who Succeed in Male-Dominated Sectors in Uganda.” Africa Region Gender Practice Policy Brief No. 9, World Bank, Washington, DC. Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and J. E. Rockoff. 2014. “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood.” American Economic Review 104 (9): 2633–79. Evans, D. K., and A. Popova. 2015. “What Really Works to Improve Learning in Developing Countries? An Analysis of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews.” Policy Research Working Paper 7203, World Bank, Washington, DC. Hanushek, E., and S. Rivkin. 2010. “Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality.” CALDER, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, DC. Lauwerier, T., and A. Akkari. 2015. “Teachers and the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Education Research and Foresight: Working Papers Series 11. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris. World Bank. 2011. The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2015. “Female Entrepreneurs Who Succeed in Male-Dominated Sectors in Ethiopia.” Gender Innovation Lab Policy Issue No. 12, World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2016a. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2016b. Service Delivery Indicators at a Glance. Washington, DC: World Bank. 41 CPIA Africa: Compare your country 42 C O U N T R Y TA B L E S BENIN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 10.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 9.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 — 3.8 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 903 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 52 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Benin Average 3.7 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 3.6 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.5 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 2.8 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 3.5 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Benin • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 -0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 44 BURKINA FASO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 17.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 12.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.6 0.1 3.8 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 713 (Structural Policies and Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 47 and Institutions) (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Burkina SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Faso Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Burkina Faso IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.6 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 and Institutions 3.6 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 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Burkina Faso Transparency, Accountability, 3.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.6 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Burkina Faso • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 45 BURUNDI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 10.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 3.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 0.2 3.6 2.5 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, 2012, est) 77 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Burundi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.3 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 3.1 Debt Policy 2.5 3.3 2.9 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 2.7 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Burundi IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.6 3.2 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 and Institutions 3.1 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 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Burundi 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Burundi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.5 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 46 CABO VERDE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 1.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 0.1 4.0 3.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 3641 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. and Institutions) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.25 a day (% of population, 2011, est) 13.7 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Cabo SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Verde Average 4.4 Economic Management 3.7 3.3 4.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 4.0 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.8 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 3.6 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.4 Trade 4.5 3.7 3.2 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 4.0 3.0 and Institutions 3.8 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 4.2 Quality of Public Administration 4.0 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Cabo Verde Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 4.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Cabo Verde • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.4 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.5 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.8 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 47 CAMEROON World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 22.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 32.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 0.1 3.5 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,407 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 27 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Cameroon Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Cameroon 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 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 and Institutions 3.1 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 3.2 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 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 3.1 3.2 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015 credits to the poorest countries Cameroon • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 48 CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 1.7 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.5 0.1 3.0 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 359 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 60 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Central SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator African Average Republic 3.6 Economic Management 3.0 3.3 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 2.8 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 2.4 Structural Policies 2.3 3.2 Trade 2.5 3.7 2.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 Comparison Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Building Human Resources 2.5 3.5 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Policies and Institutions for 2.8 2.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.0 2.5 2.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 1.5 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.8 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Central African Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA Republic 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.5 3.2 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015 credits to the poorest countries Central African Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.4 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 49 CHAD World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 13.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 13.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.8 0.1 3.2 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,025 (Policies for Social Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Inclusion and Equity) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 36 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Chad Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 2.5 Trade 3.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.7 3.0 and Institutions 2.8 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 2.8 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Chad Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.8 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Chad • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.5 0.5 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.1 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 50 COMOROS World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 0.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.8 0.1 3.0 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 810 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 15 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Comoros Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 2.8 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.6 3.0 and Institutions 2.8 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.7 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.3 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Comoros Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.8 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Comoros • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.8 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.5 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.4 0.4 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 51 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 74.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 33.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 — 3.5 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 442 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 77 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Congo DR Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 2.8 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Congo, Democratic IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.0 3.2 Republic Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 and Institutions 3.0 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Congo, Democratic 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA Republic and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Congo, Democratic Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 52 CONGO, REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 14.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 — 3.5 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 3,147 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 28 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Congo SSA IDA Indicator Overall CPIA Scores Republic Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Congo, Republic 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 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 3.5 Public Sector Management 2015 3.5 2.5 3.0 and Institutions 3.0 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Congo, Republic 2.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.2 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Congo, Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.7 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.1 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 53 CÔTE D’IVOIRE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 22.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 34.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.7 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,546 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Equity) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 28 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Côte SSA IDA Indicator Overall CPIA Scores d’Ivoire Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.7 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 2.5 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Côte d’Ivoire 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 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 and Institutions 3.3 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 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Côte d’Ivoire 3.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Côte d’Ivoire • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 1.2 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.7 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.6 0.6 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 54 ERITREA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) NA Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) NA previous year performing cluster performing cluster 1.9 0.1 2.6 1.3 GDP per capita (current US$) NA (Policies for Social Inclusion (Economic Management and Below SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) NA (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Eritrea Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.4 Economic Management 1.3 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.5 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.5 3.1 2.6 Debt Policy 1.0 3.3 Structural Policies 1.3 3.2 2.2 Trade 1.5 3.7 Financial Sector 1.0 2.9 1.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 1.5 3.1 Eritrea IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.6 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 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 2.3 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Eritrea 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 1.9 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Eritrea • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 -0.2 -0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.4 -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.9 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 55 ETHIOPIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 97.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 55.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 — 3.8 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 574 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. No change and Equity) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 29 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Ethiopia Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.2 Trade 3.0 3.7 3.1 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Ethiopia IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.8 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 and Institutions 3.5 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 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ethiopia Transparency, Accountability, 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Ethiopia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 0.2 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 56 GAMBIA, THE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 1.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 0.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.2 3.3 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 441 (Structural Policies and Policies for Below SSA IDA Avg. Social Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 45 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Gambia, SSA IDA Indicator Overall CPIA Scores The Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.0 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.0 3.1 3.2 Debt Policy 2.5 3.3 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 and Institutions 2.9 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Gambia, The 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Gambia, The • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 0.1 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -1.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 57 GHANA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 26.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 38.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.6 0.2 3.9 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,442 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 13 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Ghana Overall CPIA Scores Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.0 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 3.1 Ghana IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.9 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.7 3.0 and Institutions 3.6 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 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ghana Transparency, Accountability, 3.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.6 3.2 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015 credits to the poorest countries Ghana • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 -0.1 -0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 -0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.7 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 58 GUINEA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 12.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 6.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 0.1 3.3 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 540 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 35 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Guinea Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.3 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 2.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 3.1 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 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 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 3.1 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Guinea • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.3 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 0.2 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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 GUINEA-BISSAU World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 1.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 1.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.5 — 3.0 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 568 (Policies for Social Inclusion Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) and Equity and Public Sector Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 63 Management and Institutions) (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Guinea- SSA IDA Indicator Overall CPIA Scores Bissau Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 2.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.3 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Guinea-Bissau IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.2 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2015 2.9 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 2.0 3.1 2008 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.6 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Guinea-Bissau 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.5 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Guinea-Bissau • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.7 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.4 -0.4 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 60 KENYA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 44.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 60.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 — 4.3 3.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,358 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 26 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Kenya Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.3 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 4.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.4 3.0 and Institutions 3.8 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 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Kenya Transparency, Accountability, 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Kenya • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.5 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 61 LESOTHO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 2.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 2.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.4 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,034 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Policies for Social Inclusion (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 57 and Equity) (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Lesotho Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.2 3.3 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 3.3 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 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 2.8 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 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Lesotho • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.1 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 62 LIBERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 2.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.5 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 458 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 45 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Liberia Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 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 2.8 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 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Liberia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.5 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.3 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 63 MADAGASCAR World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 23.6 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 10.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.7 2.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 449 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 82 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Madagascar Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.7 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 3.4 Debt Policy 4.5 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.1 Madagascar IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2015 2.9 2.7 3.0 and Institutions 3.1 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 3.5 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Madagascar 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Madagascar • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.9 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 64 MALAWI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 16.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 4.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.5 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 255 (Policies for Social At the SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 71 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Malawi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.1 2008 3.5 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.8 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 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Malawi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.1 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 65 MALI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 17.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 12.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 — 3.8 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 705 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 51 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Mali Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 3.7 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.5 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1 Mali IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 and Institutions 3.4 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Mali 3.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Mali • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 66 MAURITANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 5.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 0.1 3.5 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,275 (Structural Policies and Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 10 and Institutions) (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mauritania Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Mauritania 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 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.3 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 4.0 3.4 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 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 3.3 3.2 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015 credits to the poorest countries Mauritania • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.0 0.0 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 67 MOZAMBIQUE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 27.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 15.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.8 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 586 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 62 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mozambique Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.1 3.4 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.5 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 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Mozambique Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 Countries in SSA 0utside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Mozambique • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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 NIGER World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 19.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 8.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.8 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 427 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 45 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Niger Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 and Institutions 3.5 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 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Niger Transparency, Accountability, 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Niger • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.0 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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 NIGERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 177.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 568.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 0.1 3.8 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 3,203 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 52 (2014) 2013 Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Nigeria Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 Debt Policy 4.5 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 and Institutions 3.4 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Nigeria 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Nigeria • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.3 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.5 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 70 RWANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 7.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 4.0 — 4.3 3.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 696 (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, 2012, est) 57 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Rwanda Overall CPIA Scores Average 4.2 Economic Management 4.0 3.3 4.0 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.1 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.6 Structural Policies 4.2 3.2 3.4 Trade 4.5 3.7 3.2 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 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 2.8 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 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Rwanda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.7 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.4 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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 SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 0.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.2 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,810 Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 32 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend São Tomé SSA IDA Indicator Overall CPIA Scores and Príncipe Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 3.1 Debt Policy 2.5 3.3 2.9 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.7 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 and Institutions 3.1 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 2.8 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 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries São Tomé and Príncipe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 72 SENEGAL World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 14.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 15.7 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 — 4.2 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,067 (Policies for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) Inclusion and Equity) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 38 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Senegal Overall CPIA Scores Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 4.0 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2015 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.6 3.0 and Institutions 3.8 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 3.6 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Senegal 3.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Senegal • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.4 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.2 0.2 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 73 SIERRA LEONE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 6.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 4.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.5 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 766 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 50 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend Sierra SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Leone Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Sierra Leone 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 3.0 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.3 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 2.8 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 3.3 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Sierra Leone • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.4 0.4 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.0 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.2 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 74 SOUTH SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 13.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 1.9 0.1 2.2 1.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,115 Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) NA (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend South SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.4 Economic Management 1.5 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.5 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.5 3.1 2.6 Debt Policy 1.5 3.3 Structural Policies 2.2 3.2 2.2 Trade 2.0 3.7 1.8 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.1 South IDA Borrowers' SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.1 3.2 Sudan Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 1.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 1.7 3.0 and Institutions 1.9 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 1.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 1.5 3.1 2012 2.9 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.0 3.4 2.1 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.8 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 1.9 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries South Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 75 SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 39.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 73.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.4 — 2.7 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,876 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 12 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.4 Economic Management 2.3 3.3 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 2.8 Debt Policy 1.5 3.3 2.6 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 2.4 Trade 2.5 3.7 2.2 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.2 3.0 and Institutions 2.4 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 2.8 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Sudan Transparency, Accountability, 1.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.4 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 0.2 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.4 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 76 TANZANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 51.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 48.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 0.1 4.0 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 955 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 47 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Tanzania Overall CPIA Scores Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2015 3.5 3.3 3.0 and Institutions 3.7 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 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 3.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Tanzania 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.2 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 2015 • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Tanzania • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 77 TOGO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 7.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 4.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 — 3.3 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 635 (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, 2012, est) 53 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Togo Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 Debt Policy 2.0 3.3 2.8 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.4 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.9 2.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.1 Togo 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 3.5 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2015 2.9 Public Sector Management 2.6 3.0 and Institutions 3.0 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 2.5 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Togo 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Togo • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.6 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 0.4 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 0.0 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 78 UGANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 37.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 27.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 — 4.2 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 715 (Public Sector Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 33 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Uganda Overall CPIA Scores Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.2 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.1 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.3 3.4 Structural Policies 4.0 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.7 3.2 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 3.1 Uganda 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2015 3.5 3.1 3.0 and Institutions 3.7 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 3.5 3.4 3.9 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Uganda 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Countries in SSA outside SSA Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Uganda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 -0.3 -0.3 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 79 ZAMBIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 15.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 27.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 0.1 3.7 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,722 Above SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 62 (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Zambia Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.7 Economic Management 3.0 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.5 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1 Debt Policy 3.5 3.3 3.3 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.9 3.1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 3.5 Public Sector Management 2015 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Zambia 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.2 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 2015 • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa Zambia • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) -0.7 • 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 80 ZIMBABWE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2015 Quick Facts Population (millions) 15.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$)(billions) 14.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.2 3.3 2.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 931 (Policies for Social (Economic Management and Below IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity) Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) NA (2014) Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015 Trend SSA IDA Indicator Zimbabwe Overall CPIA Scores Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.7 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.1 2.5 Debt Policy 2.0 3.3 2.0 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 1.5 Trade 3.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.9 1.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.1 Zimbabwe 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 3.5 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2015 2.9 2.8 3.0 and Institutions 2.9 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 2.8 Transparency, Accountability, Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Zimbabwe 2.0 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.2 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 2015 credits to the poorest countries Zimbabwe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 1.7 1.8 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016 1.5 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 1.2 1.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 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 2017 Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 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. 81 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 revenue from all sources as they are actually collected. 15. Quality of Public Administration: The core administration defined as the civilian central government (and sub-national 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. 82 Appendix B: Country Groups Sub-Saharan Africa Non Sub-Saharan Africa Fragile Non-Fragile Fragile Non-Fragile Burundi Benin Afghanistan Bangladesh Central African Republic Burkina Faso Djibouti Bhutan Chad Cameroon Haiti Bolivia Comoros Cabo Verde Kiribati Cambodia Congo, Democratic Republic Congo, Republic Kosovo Dominica Côte D'ivoire Ethiopia Marshall Islands Grenada Eritrea Ghana Micronesia, FS Guyana Gambia, The Guinea Myanmar Honduras Guinea-Bissau Kenya Papua New Guinea Kyrgyz Republic Liberia Lesotho Solomon Islands Lao, PDR Madagascar Malawi Tuvalu Maldives Mali Mauritania Yemen, Republic Moldova Sierra Leone Mozambique Mongolia South Sudan Niger Nepal Sudan Nigeria Nicaragua Togo Rwanda Pakistan Zimbabwe São Tomé and Príncipe Samoa Senegal Sri Lanka Tanzania St. Lucia Uganda St. Vincent Zambia Tajikistan Timor- Leste Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vietnam Note: “Fragile Situations” have: either a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or b) the presence of a UN 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 either they do not have CPIA data or are IBRD countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, and West Bank and Gaza. 83 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA The CPIA is a diagnostic tool that is intended to capture the quality of a country’s policies and institutional arrangements—i.e., 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 both 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 and 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 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (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 2011 CPIA exercise. The revisions were guided by the conclusions of an IEG evaluation and by the relevant literature findings and the 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 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 sub- component 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 sub-national governments. • In 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 IDA allocations—concessional lending and grants—to low-income countries. Details are available at: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 84 85 JUNE 2016