For the latest report on CDF see Comprehensive Development Framework: Meeting the Promise? Early Experience and Emerging Issues, September 27, 2001, SecM2001-0529/1.
Studies include Participation, Poverty Analysis, Macroeconomics, Conflict-Affected Countries, Environment, Gender, Private Sector and Infrastructure, Rural Poverty, Governance, Education, Health, and Social Protection.
Status Reports were to indicate the progress in developing the full PRSP and any revisions, and note additional steps being taken—including seeking technical assistance—to complete the full PRSP. See Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers—Progress in Implementation, SM/01/268, 9/27/01 and Annex 1.
Africa (22), Europe and Central Asia (8), East Asia (4), Latin America (4), the Middle East (2), and South Asia (1).
Countries requesting access to the Fund’s PRGF must have submitted either an I-PRSP, a PRSP Preparation Status Report, a full PRSP, or a PRSP Progress Report within the previous 12 months.
See Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Operational Issues, (SM/99/290, 12/10/99) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper—Progress in Implementation (EBS/00/167, 8/14/00).
Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Uganda were well advanced in developing their national poverty reduction strategies and completed their first full PRSPs and reached their Decision Points without a self-standing I-PRSP.
PFPs were the tripartite documents developed by the government, IMF, and the World Bank as the basis for IMF lending under the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility. For each of the ten full PRSP countries, there was a PFP in 1998 or 1999.
See Joint Bank/Fund Paper, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Operational Issues, SM/99/290, 12/10/99.
In one case (Moldova), a change in government resulted in a hiatus until the new government was in a position to move forward with PRSP preparation.
See Joint Bank/Fund Paper, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Operational Issues, SM/99/290, 12/10/99.
See, Joint Bank/Fund Paper Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Operational Issues, p. 11.
For the “retroactive” countries that had achieved Decision Points under the original HIPC Initiative framework, which include Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Guyana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, and Uganda, completion of the full PRSP—not one year of implementation—is a trigger for the Completion Point. The requirement for “non-retroactive” countries, which include Honduras, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Tanzania, and others is completion of the full PRSP and one year’s satisfactory implementation thereof.
Christian Aid, “Responses to Key Questions for the Review,” (2001) noted that “Rarely before has the role of civil society been formally legitimized in this way, or been accorded such high profile,” noting that civil society organizations have “developed skills at a staggering rate.’
As noted by DFID, December 2001.
According to the Asian Development Bank, 2001, among East Asian countries ownership and participation has been largely confined to the ministries of finance and other central agencies dealing with donor assistance. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2001, (p. 3) makes this point with respect to agriculture ministries. Germany (BMZ) 2001 also makes this point. WHO cites low involvement of Health Ministries.
This criticism, as well as many of the other points in this paragraph, is stressed by Christian Aid, 2001b.
European Commission, 2001a, and Action Aid, 2002, stressed need to involve parliaments.
See Jubilee South, 2001, (p. 5). Although there are country examples: Kenya is among several countries where a range of CSOs were involved.
CDF Secretariat, World Bank, 2001, (p. 3) indicates that there has been private-sector participation in about one-third of the PRSP countries.
ICFTU, “Submission to IMF/WB Review of the PRSP Approach,” November 2001.
UNIFEM, “Contribution to PRSP Review,” November 2001.
For detailed discussions of trade union involvement with PRSPs, see ICFTU, “Submission to IMF/WB Review of the PRSP Approach,” November 2001.
For example, UNIFEM, 2001, (p. 3).
As noted by Hughes, Levene and McGee, October 2001 (pp. 13-14).
Eberlei (2001) makes this point (p. 3).
USAID mentioned that most field missions are actively engaged in the PRSP process. USAID presentation on PRSPs, (January 16, 2002).
SPA, 2001 (pp. 5-6).
See, for example Denmark (Danida), 2001a; however, the Asian Development Bank, op cit., indicates that coordination between the World Bank and itself has not been satisfactory in some countries.
SPA, 2001 pp. 20-22. Also see EC, op cit., p. 5.
See Inter-American Development Bank, 2001.
See SPA, op cit., p. 22.
Both Uganda and Tanzania were in the midst of implementing large living standards surveys at the time of their PRSPs. Uganda was able (as a result of a concerted data cleaning and analysis effort) to use the 2000 Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) in its PRSP Progress Report (March 2001). Tanzania’s PRSP Progress Report was able to draw from the 1999 DHS and an incomplete sample of the 2000 Household Budget Survey.
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), 2001.
World Vision (2001) cites dissatisfaction with the limited and late planning of social impact assessments.
See Njinkeu, 2001.
Booth and Lucas, May 2001, p. 1. The EC, 2001 (p. 8) stressed the need for a “few, measurable, timely indicators.”
EC, 2001, p. 22.
See PRGF review, “Review of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility - Staff Analyses” for details.
Between 200-2005, Nicaragua’s external current account deficit is projected to decline from 33.3 to 22.0 percent of GDP, and international reserves are expected to increase from 3.1 to 3.7 months of imports of goods and services.
As discussed in more detail above (paragraphs 62-63), the early full PRSPs are very limited in their presentation of existing or planned PSIA of priority public actions, including the key macroeconomic policies.
CIDSE and CARITAS maintain that orthodox structural adjustment policies dominate PRSPs, focusing on “budget austerity, economic growth and free market approaches,” with little consideration of who benefits and who loses from these policies. The World Development Movement and the Pan-African Declaration on PRSPs suggests that PRSPs are a veil for the Bank and the Fund to continue their neo-liberal agenda without any real change in the content or ownership of policies. Save the Children (2001) maintains there is little consideration of macroeconomic alternatives, as does IBIS.
Issues related to the quality and usefulness of public expenditure data and the coverage of public expenditure management in PRSPs are discussed in paragraphs 115-119 below.
See the PRGF Review for a broader discussion of fiscal choice issues for the full set of PRGF countries.
“Poverty-reducing” spending is country specific and follows the definition in the PRSP. PRSPs have defined a range of programs as poverty-reducing, including primary education and health, spending on rural development and on roads. Data are drawn from the PRSPs themselves, or from other documents (such as staff reports or decision point documents). The sample excludes Nicaragua, which is not a PRGF country, and the most recent PRSPs: Albania and Niger.
The high projected increase in real per-capita spending in education is affected by Mozambique’s PARPA; without Mozambique, the average increase in real per-capita education spending falls from 14 to 10 percent.
Ideally, macroeconomic frameworks can be cast against the backdrop of the MDGs, as adapted to their national circumstances. Measures that would permit the country to meet these objectives were to be fully costed and prioritized within sector-specific strategies that were to be integrated into a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) and annual budgets and, in turn, within a consistent macroeconomic framework. Such prioritization would allow the country to define a set of contingency spending measures that could be pursued based on the availability of domestic and external concessional resources. See Macro chapter of the PRS Sourcebook.
This is emphasized in DAC, op. cit.
This list of issues is drawn primarily from the governance chapter of the World Bank’s PRSP Sourcebook.
Casson and Grindle, 2001, and Eurodad, op cit., (p. 8), argue that PRSPs should more comprehensively cover broader political issues relating, for example, to participatory democracy and elections.
See also the recent Joint Bank-Fund Board paper on Actions to Strengthen the Tracking of Poverty-Related Spending in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, SM/02/30 and IDA/SecM2002-0030, January 30, 2002, and the PRGF Review, for a more general discussion.
H. Falck, and K. Landfald, “The Poverty Reduction Strategy Process in Mozambique,” PRSP Institutionalization Study, Final Report, (August 2001).
ODI, “PRSP Institutionalization Study,” London, U.K.: ODI.
UNIFEM (2001) argues that gender is rarely recognized as a crosscutting issue and also objects to many countries’ subsuming the category of women under a broad ‘vulnerable’ group.
See UNCTAD, 2000.
See also OECD DAC, November 2001.
World Bank “Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why,” (World Bank, 1998) and Devarajan, et. al. “Aid and Reform in Africa: Lessons from Ten Case Studies, (World Bank, 2000).
African Development Bank, December 2001, p. 1.
UNDP, UNDP review of the PRSPs” (2001), p. 12.
IDB, 2001, p. 5.
ADB, 2001, p. 2.
World Bank, “Comprehensive Development Framework: Meeting the Promise?,” September 27, 2001, SecM2001-0529/1, p. 19.
See IMF-World Bank “Strengthening IMF-World Bank Collaboration on Country Programs and Conditionality,” 2001.
Erin Coyle and Alison Evans, “Donor Engagement with National PRSP Processes,” Prepared for Strategic Partnership with Africa, (SPA, October 2001), pp. 11-14.
See Interim Guidelines for Poverty Reduction Support Credits, May 2001, on the World Bank’s website (www.worldbank.org/about/whatwedo) under Lending Instruments.
The PRSC country documents are available on the World Bank’s website at www.worldbank.org/infoshop.
For example, Eurodad expressed concern about the “back-door” policy specification, noting that “there has been a tendency to add extra specifications to policies and reforms” into PRSC documentations that are not in the PRSP. See Eurodad, “Many Dollars, Any Change?”, October 2001, p. 1.
See IMF, “Review of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility—Staff Analyses,” SM/02/51, Supplement 1.
See, for example, OECD 2001; DFID, 2001; World Vision, 2001; Catholic Relief Services, 2001; and Eurodad, 2001.
The Bank is presently carrying out related work on Low-Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS).
The Seminar Series uses video-conferencing to expose resident mission staff and their clients and partners in government, academia, NGOs, and donor agencies to recent intellectual developments, best practice, and current empirical research in the field of PRSPs.