Evaluation of the IMF's Role in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility

Annex 1 Survey of PRSP Stakeholders

David Goldsbrough, Isabelle Mateos y Lago, Martin Kaufman, Daouda Sembene, Tsidi Tsikata, Steve Mugerwa, Alex Segura-Ubiergo, and Jeff Chelsky
Published Date:
September 2004
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

Global Results

As part of the OED and IEO evaluations of the PRSP process and the PRGF, a survey of PRSP stakeholders was administered in each of the ten countries where a case study was undertaken. The objective of the survey was to obtain perceptions of the PRSP process and the role of the World Bank and IMF in supporting the initiative.

A standard survey of 39 questions was administered in each country. The full questionnaire can be found on both of the evaluation websites: www.worldbank.org/oed/prsp and http://www.imf.org/external/np/ieo/2002/prsp/index.htm. The sur-vey consists of four main components: information on respondents; the PRSP process (covering owner-ship, results orientation, comprehensiveness, partnership orientation, and long-term perspective); World Bank performance; and the role of the IMF. In most cases, respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with statements on a five-point scale.1 The survey was translated, into local languages, where necessary, and pre-tested. A local consultant with survey experience was en-gaged in each country to assist with administration of the survey. Survey results were coded by the local consultant and sent back to Washington, and an outside contractor, Fusion Analytics, was hired to analyze the data.

The survey was targeted at key groups within the three main categories of PRSP stakeholders: govern-ment, civil society, and international partners.2 Within each group, the survey sought to obtain an institutional view and was targeted at the most knowl-edgeable individuals. Respondents were asked to de-fine the nature of their involvement in the PRSP process, and their level of familiarity with the PRSP document, the Bank, and the IMF. Given the targeted nature of the survey, respondents who were “Not Aware” of the PRSP process were excluded from the results. The specific samples were selected using three main inputs: information gained through the country case study mission; participants listed in the PRSP document; and input from the local consul-tant. In some cases, samples were circulated to ob-tain broader input on their composition. The study teams also identified a set of highly relevant respon-dents in each country for whom a survey response was required. These included core ministries and agencies (such as finance, economy, and central bank), key PRSP-related ministries (such as health, education, agriculture), and major donors. Survey questionnaires were tracked in order to ensure responses were obtained from key groups; however, individual respondents could choose to remain anonymous.

The following section presents aggregate findings from the survey applied in all ten countries. Section A provides an overview of the survey respondents, including the nature of involvement and familiarity with the process. Section B provides an aggregated snapshot of stakeholder perceptions of the PRSP process across each of five main subcategories. Section C provides the mean results for all questions concerning the role and effectiveness of Bank and Fund support. Section D presents results for questions with the most positive and negative responses and questions where there was the greatest consensus or disagreement on issues.

A. Respondent Characteristics

B. The PRSP Process1

C. World Bank and IMF1

D. Composite Results Table


“Agree” or



(4 or 5)
Percent Neutral(3)Percent

“Disagree” or



(1 or 2)



Know or

Most positive
Q8: Relevance: PRSP is a good model5930113.691.067
Q9: Relevance: PRSP adds value5828143.641.089
Q10: Relevance: PRSP improves on past modalities5730133.611.0511
Q25: Partnership-oriented: Donors supported formulation5624203.571.1516
Q16: Results-oriented: Outcomes benefit poor Most negative5526193.561.158
Most negative
Q18: Results-oriented: Structure to monitor results2831412.841.1721
Q19: Results-oriented: Results feedback3132372.961.1624
Q22: Comprehensive: Macroeconomic framework participatory3827353.031.2517
Q17: Results-oriented: Realistic targets and plans3828343.141.169
Q21: Comprehensive: Alternatives fully explored3532333.011.1218
Most polarized
Q15: Country-driven: Government continues to engage stakeholders4819333.231.4213
Q13: Country-driven: Your stakeholders were consulted4522333.201.3311
Q14: Country-driven: Final document was modified to accommodate viewpoints4425313.161.2919
Q22: Comprehensive: Macroeconomic framework participatory3827353.031.2517
Q12: Country-driven: PRSP driven by national stakeholders4228303.241.258
Greatest consensus
Q30: Partnership-oriented: Quality of Bank-Fund collaboration5232163.441.0146
Q28: Partnership-oriented: Current donor coordination3439273.031.0218
Q29: Partnership-oriented: Coordination between World Bank and IMF improved4635193.361.0448
Q10: Relevance: PRSP improves on past modalities5730133.611.0511
Q8: Relevance: PRSP is a good model5930113.691.067
Most unfamiliar
Q29: Partnership-oriented: Coordination between World Bank and IMF improved4635193.361.0448
Q30: Partnership-oriented: Quality of Bank/Fund collaboration5232163.441.0146
Q19: Results-oriented: Results feedback3132372.961.1624
Q27: Partnership-oriented: Donor coordination improved5226223.431.1122
Q18: Results-oriented: Structure to monitor results2831412.841.1721
Note: The percentages of those who “Agree,” are “Neutral,” or “Disagree” relate to the total that responded to each question. The percentage of “Don’t Know or Unsure” is calculated on the basis of the total respondents in the survey (779). “Most Positive” were chosen on the basis of the highest percentage who agreed or completely agreed, picking the top five means—but with the number of respondents in each case determining the ranking. Likewise, “Most Negative” were selected on the basis of the highest percentages who disagreed or completely disagreed and the five lowest means. The “Most Polarized” responses and those indicating “Greatest Consensus” were those with the five highest and lowest standard deviations, respectively. “Most Unfamiliar” were the highest percentage of responses in-dicating that they “Didn’t Know or Were Unsure.”

The five-point scales used in most questions offered a range from 1: “Completely Disagree” to 5: “Completely Agree.” Re-spondents could also mark 0 for “Don’t Know or Unsure.”

Fourteen stakeholder groups were identified: government—central government, line ministries, and sector agencies, local government, parliament; civil society—local NGOs, business sector, labor unions, academia, media, religious organization, political party; and other international partners—donor, I-NGO. Results at the stakeholder group level will be presented in the ag-gregate analysis across all countries.

Based on a five-point scale, where 1: “Completely Disagree” to 5: “Completely Agree.” Respondents could also mark 0 for “Don’t Know or Unsure.”

    Other Resources Citing This Publication