• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)
 

State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)

on

  • 504 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
504
Views on SlideShare
504
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  •  
  •  
  • DEFINITION OF THE STATE HERE? ‘the state is a political community that governs itself through a set of institutions’E stands here fro excel –maybe one day this will mean ‘electronic’ tool (web-based)
  • ACL framework – also in the GAC. This is for the overall state-level, but at each step these definitions and corresponding questions are further refined to domain- and institution-specific questionsAs you know “governance” is about what the state can do and how it does it.  What the state can dois determined by:Its Authority Its Capacity andIts Legitimacy*AUTHORITY is the ability of the state to govern its territory effectively, reach all citizens regardless of their location, gender, or ethnicity, maintain law and order and protect citizens from predation and violence. It is the ability of the laws and rules of the state to trump all other laws and rules”.  Usually, authority is used to mean legal (formal or de jure) authority, as in “who/ what gives you the authority to do X”. However, the definition used in this framework refers more to the actual exercise of authority, regardless of its (legal or otherwise) source. This is particularly important in FCS, because often informal authority, like informal institutions, can play a stronger role or diverge from formal ones.*CAPACITY is the ability of the state to procure and deliver goods and services, design and implement policies, build infrastructure, collect revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive environment for the private sector.  Capacity is different from effectiveness.Effectivenessis the extent to which the government actually achieves its policy objectives. Capacity is what a government has when it can identify, plan, prioritize, implement, and monitor policy programs and learn from specific courses of action; mobilize, deploy and where necessary - motivate resources (assets, people, money and information) consistently and continuously on agreed public priorities; and discipline a heavily constrained system to pursue agreed objectives collectively.* Lastly, LEGITIMACY is whether citizens feel the government has the right to govern – and whether they trust the government.  This tends to be the more difficult dimension to assess because it is based on public opinion and therefore, is subjective by nature A state can derive legitimacy from two possible sources:  From performancehow well the government is doing in creating jobs, or from delivering safe water, or standing up to neighbouring states etcor  from process how it acquired power orwhether its institutions have a process of dialogue and engagement of women and ethnic/excluded minorities in policy making and service delivery choices etc.  Different groups in society may have different views about the legitimacy of the state and of specific institutions. Which means that Legitimacy, in addition to being subjective, is often also fragmented. Indeed, public opinion about how a state acquired its power and whether that was perceived as being legitimate or not at the time can affect public opinion in the future about its institutions’ performance – even in situations where the state may have high authority and strong institutional capacity.  
  • TEXT HERE – ‘disaggregation’ of ACL - give examples Minimum of security and political stability (survival functions) before state can promote economic and social development, BUT a resilient state has to ‘deliver’ in all domains where citizens expect the state to play a role. Constitutive Domain (Survival Functions)SecurityPolitical/GovernmentOutput Domain (Expected Functions)EconomicSocial/Service DeliveryA,C,L challenges will differ by domain and within each domainE.g. High authority over security forces (strong monopoly of force), but low legitimacy of how security is being delivered (excessive use of force)E.g. political inclusion can help increase legitimacy of the state/ government, but low performance/ effectiveness in delivering security, justice, economic growth and/ or social services can still weaken the state’s overall legitimacyInstitutionscan take different forms in different contexts – but ‘generic’/ typical institutions can be identifiedInformal institutions matter as much (sometimes more) as formal onesMany institutions contribute to outcomes in more than one domain (e.g. justice institutions, local authorities etc.)Each institution/ organization has its own ACL challenges Generic questions to determine ACL of key institutions below
  • After 1 comes in, say that represents the ‘slim’ version of the tool
  • 1. Joint donor assessments. Given that it aims to capture and reconcile different viewpoints, the SBAT can be very useful for structuring and advancing donor discussions. Depending on the set-up and the number of participants, time needed for preparation, workshop and follow-up might be higher than in the ‘standard’ version. 2. Focus on a specific sector or domain. This is recommended particularly for follow-up, i.e. after the tool has been used for an overall analysis, country teams can choose to delve deeper in one of the sectors and corresponding institutions that have been prioritized in their country strategy and/ or for which a substantial intervention (e.g. IL) is being planned. 3. Use for sub-national authorities. This can be done either by inserting rows dedicated specifically to sub-national authorities (e.g. states in federal systems) in the state-building assessment tabs (e.g. Strategic Level, State Domains and Institutions) or by using the whole tool for assessing one specific sub-national entity. 4. Use with government and/ or civil society representatives. It is up to country teams to decide if and how they want to share the tool with their partners and other country stakeholders. Given that some of the questions can be sensitive in some contexts, teams are encouraged to carefully select which elements of the tool they want to share. Some parts of tool have already been piloted with civil society organizations from a number of African countries at a workshop in May 2012. 5. Use in other low- and middle-income countries. While state-building is a high priority in fragile and conflict-affected states, the tool can also help identify and address governance concerns in ‘non-fragile’ states. In these cases, some parts of the assessment can be done more quickly (e.g. regarding security), depending on the context and specific country needs.
  • Alternate conceptualization around: three dimensions of effective states/ governance (ACL), four domains where the state should deliver (security, political/ gvt, economic, social/ service delivery); and a myriad of institutions
  • Where available, country-specific indicators listed in ‘Fragile and Conflict Affected States, State-Building at a Glance’ SheetsNOT ‘precise’ or exhaustive indicators – ‘food for thought’Use own judgment and alternative sources for assessment
  • DO NOT DISCUSS IN DETAIL – JUST PRESENT!

State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) Presentation Transcript

  • State-Building in Fragile States: An Assessment Toolkit
  • CONTEXT  Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility  WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of donors in FCS forward, BUT  Challenges of operationalization and persisting weaknesses in donor approaches to state-building:   Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States: ◦ Overarching Guidance Note’ ◦ Interactive E-Tool (excel-based) ◦ How To Note on how to use the Tool ◦ Set of State Building at a Glance indicators, ◦ Working / background paper reviewing literature underpinning the approach2
  • Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States  Offers country and donor teams: ◦ A common ‘language’ or framework for approaching/ understanding fundamental state-building issues ◦ A structured and guided process for collectively an consistently discussing and assessing state-building challenges and their implications for country programming  Toolkit CAN: ◦ Help teams arrive at a common understanding on state- building challenges and implications for country programming ◦ Help ‘surface’ some of the difficult state-building challenges that often are passed over ◦ Help identify areas for further in-depth investigation (via PEA and other analytical instruments/ approaches)  Toolkit CANNOT provide definitive answers (if you find X, then do Y)3
  • Overview - Conceptual framework 1. Social and Political Context: Nature and Context of Fragility 2. 3 core dimensions/ characteristics of functioning states and institutions: Authority, Capacity, Legitimacy (ACL) 3. 4 ‘domains’ where these dimensions play out: constitutive/survival domains (security, political/ government), and output/expected domains (economic, social service delivery) 4. A myriad of institutions that contribute to outcomes in the four domains  Each institution will have its own authority-capacity-legitimacy (ACL) challenges4
  • THE ACL FRAMEWORK – CORE CONCEPTS Capacity (C): The ability of the state to deliver goods and services, procure goods and services, design and implement policies, build infrastructure, collect revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive environment for the private sector. Authority (A): The ability of the state to govern its territory Legitimacy (L): effectively, reach all citizens regardless of Effective Whether citizens feel the government has their location, maintain law and order and protect Public the right to govern – and whether they trust citizens from predation and violence. It is the Authority the government. (Both ability of the laws and performance and rules of the state to process matter) trump all other laws and rules.5
  • Structural Causes of FragilityMacro-/Structural Level Elite and social cleavages Political settlement, political system and social contract 1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT AUTHORITY (A) CAPACITY (C) LEGITIMACY (L) 2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT A C LSpecific Institutions & Organizations SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMIC SOC/ SERV DEL. 3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc. POL/ GVT . INSTIT. 4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
  • Over view – State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)  Excel-based Tool guides teams step by step through the assessment process  Each step includes questions or ‘prompts’ to help teams: ◦ Assess the ACL of the state or of key institutions at the respective level and identify state-building needs based on this assessment ◦ Assess what the government, the Bank, and the international community are doing to address these needs ◦ Identify the implications of the assessment for the Bank’s portfolio in terms of risks, priorities and next steps7
  • Structural Causes of FragilityMacro-/Structural Level Elite and social cleavages Political settlement, political system and social contract 1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT AUTHORITY (A) State-Building Implications CAPACITY (C) Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships LEGITIMACY (L) Risk implications 2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT 2. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS A C L State-Building Implications SECURITY Implications for the Bank portfolioSpecific Institutions & Organizations POL/ GVT and partnerships ECONOMIC Risk implications SOC/ SERV DEL. Prioritization 3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT 3. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS A C L Implications for the Bank portfolio SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. and partnerships 2. Justice instit. Risk implications 3. Etc. Prioritization POL/ GVT . INSTIT. 4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT Analysis Practice
  • How to use the SBAT  Team-based assessment and planning tool  workshop of 1 to 4 days (depending on version used)  Needs: ◦ Team contact person + facilitator for planning, conducting and following up on the workshop ◦ Ideally: work in groups of max 5-6 people ◦ Laptop(s) + Projector(s)9
  • Purpose and Options for Customization  The SBAT is best used to inform the development of country strategies in FCS (ISNs or CASs), but it can be ‘customized’ to meet a variety of needs. E.g.: 1. Joint donor assessments. 2. Focus on a specific sector or domain. 3. Use for sub-national authorities. 4. Use with government and/ or civil society representatives. 5. Use in other low- and middle-income countries.10
  • Conclusion  Not just ‘another’ analytical tool:  ◦ Focuses more directly on the state and what the Bank and its partners can do to strengthen it ◦ Takes a systematic approach of linking different levels of assessment:  From the macro-/ strategic level to individual institutions and organizations  From analysis to strategic and operational implications ◦ Offers a conceptual framework or a ‘common language’ on state- building. ◦ Generates a common team-based experience of linking analysis to operational implications ◦ Can surface many of the difficult issues and diverse viewpoints about state-building that often are left unnoticed ◦ Offers (some) suggestions for strategic and operational choices for supporting state-building  Structured guidance for systematic team discussion of state-building challenges and implications11
  • The SBAT in detail
  • Step 1. Assess the Social and Political Context  To understand to nature and the causes of fragility 1. Structural Causes – e.g. ethnic or religious divisions, economic inequality 2. Elite cleavages 3. Social cleavages/ social cohesion 4. Political Settlement/ Political System 5. Social Contract/ Citizen-State Relations ◦ Reflection of key drivers of fragility in the four domains of governance ◦ Key issues, risks and expected evolution over time  Sets the stage for considering the state and its institutions with their overall socio-political context13
  • TAB 1: POLITICAL & SOCIAL CONTEXT OVERALL NATURE AND CAUSES OF STATE FRAGILITY KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS FRAGILITY "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS" What (kind of) events, changes in key What is/ are the fundamental cause(s) of variables etc. could exacerbate these How severe are these structural How do you expect these causes to fragility (e.g. economic/ religious/ causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of causes? evolve over time ? territorial disputes etc.)? Structural causes of fragility conflict? How likely are they? Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one Improving/No change/Worsening? Select Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here option one option Who are the key elite groups and what is their power basis? How do they bargain What (kind of) events, changes in key with each other? How credible are their variables etc. could exacerbate these How do you expect these cleavages to How severe are elite cleavages? agreements; is there an elite pact/ causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of evolve over time ? political settlement? How are rents, conflict? How likely are they? Elite cleavages power, resources etc. distributed? Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one Improving/No change/Worsening? Select Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here option one option What/ who are the key social groups What (kind of) events, changes in key (e.g. ethnic religious etc.)? What is the variables etc. could exacerbate these How do you expect these cleavages to relationship between them/ how do they How severe are social cleavages? causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of evolve over time ? Societal cleavages/ Social relate to each other? Are some groups conflict? How likely are they? sistematically excluded/ marginalized? Cohesion Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one Improving/No change/Worsening? Select Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here option one option How robust is the political settlement? What (kind of) events, changes in key How do you expect the [robustness of (How) Is it institutionalized through the variables etc. could exacerbate these ] the political settlement - as embedded political system? (How) does the How robust is the political settlement? causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of in the political system - to evolve over political system mitigate or reinforce/ Political Settlement/ Political conflict? How likely are they? time? amplify elite and social divisions? System Improving/No change/Worsening? Select Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option one option What is the relationship between citizens and the state? (How) can What (kind of) events, changes in key citizens articulate their expectations and variables etc. could exacerbate these How do you expect citizen-state (how) responsive is the state to these How robust is the social contract? causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of relations to evolve over time? expectations? How institutionalized is Social Contract/ Citizen-State conflict? How likely are they? this relationship through the political Relations system? Improving/No change/Worsening? Select Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option one option Based on the above, what are the key What are the most likely key risks/ How do you expect this fragility to issues arising from your consideration How severe is fragility ? potential stresses? evolve over time? of the nature and causes of fragility? Conclusion/ Summary High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Fragility? Select one option 14 Fragility? Select one option 14
  • CAUSES & NATURE OF SECTORAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY KEY INSTITUTIONS "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS" What are the key institutions "to watch" in the security sector - which ones are the How are the drivers of fragility, including What (kind of) events, changes in key most important for state fragility or elite and social cleavages reflected in the variables etc. could undermine institutional resilience? Do they have the capacity to security sector? stability in this sector? How likely are they? mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they Security system/ institutions reflect/ exacerbate them? Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] What are the key institutions "to watch" in the political/ gvt sector - which ones are the How are the drivers of fragility, including What (kind of) events, changes in key most important for state fragility or elite and social cleavages reflected in the variables etc. could undermine institutional resilience? Do they have the capacity to political/ government sector? stability in this sector? How likely are they? mitigate these drivers of fragility or do theyPolitical/ Gvt System/ Institutions reflect/ exacerbate them? Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] How are the drivers of fragility, including What are the key institutions "to watch" in elite and social cleavages reflected in the the economic sector - which ones are the What (kind of) events, changes in key economic sector? What are the key most important for state fragility or variables etc. could undermine institutional institutions "to watch"? Do they have the resilience? Do they have the capacity to stability in this sector? How likely are they? capacity to mitigate these stresses or do mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they Economic System/ Institutions they reflect/ exacerbate them? reflect/ exacerbate them? Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] How are the drivers of fragility, including What are the key institutions "to watch" in elite and social cleavages reflected in the the security sector - which ones are the What (kind of) events, changes in key service delivery sector? What are the key most important for state fragility or variables etc. could undermine institutional institutions "to watch"? Do they have the resilience? Do they have the capacity to stability in this sector? How likely are they? capacity to mitigate these stresses or do mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they Service delivery system/ they reflect/ exacerbate them? reflect/ exacerbate them? Institutions Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] 15
  • Step 2. Strategic/ Overall Country-Level Assessment  To get an overall picture of the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy ◦ ‘Flags’ issues for further assessment at the next stages ◦ Can highlight some macro-level risks and strategic implications for teams  E.g. if the state has high legitimacy due to political inclusion, but low capacity to deliver services that are increasingly demanded by the population, then ‘flag’ building capacity for service delivery as a key issue to keep in mind for the following steps.16
  • TAB 2: OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Increasing Fragility/No Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Low Fragility? Select one Change/Decreasing Fragility? [Copied to Tab 2] [Copied to Tab 2] option Select one option STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT HIGH-LEVEL STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONSANALYTICAL INPUTS OTHER STATE CURRENT DONOR/ CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENE GOVERNMEN AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] FRAGILITY/ WB INTERNATION RISKS NEXT STEPS SS [C] T PRIORITIES RESILIENCE PORTFOLIO AL PORTFOLIO Q. Considering your Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of assessment of the roots of fragility, to what extent is the fragility, to what extent is the Q. Considering your state able to govern its state able to deliver goods assessment of the roots of territory effectively, reach all and services, procure goods What can your fragility, to what extent do citizens regardless of their and services, design and team do to citizens feel that the location, maintain law and implement policies, build address the government has the right to order and protect citizens infrastructure, collect How/ to what state-building govern? Do they trust the What are the from predation and violence? revenue, dispense justice, How/ to what extent do the issues identifiedWhat analytical products government? Based on this implications of Do the laws and rules of the and maintain a conducive How/ to what extent does the other donors here? (eg: are available/ planned/ ACL assessment, this assessment state trump all other laws environment for the private extent does the current WB and international through WB needed for this what are the key for (country) and rules? sector? gvt address portfolio partners portfolio,assessment (e.g. PEAs, issues for state- risks idenitifed these issues? address these portfolio(s) partnerships CAFs/ CSAs etc)? building? (e.g. in the High/Medium/Low? Select High/Medium/Low? Select High/Medium/Low? Select issues ? address these with other ORAF)? one option one option one option issues? donors, dialogue with the government, etc)? Rising/Stable/Falling? Select Rising/Stable/Falling? Select Rising/Stable/Falling? one option one option Select one option Insert Insert Insert Assessment Insert Insert Insert Insert List Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Assessment Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Here Here 17
  • Step 3. Domain Level Assessment  ‘Disaggregating’ ACL in the four domains of governance (security, political/ gvt., economic, and social/ service delivery) - Helps to: ◦ See in which domain and dimension the state performs better or worse  Suggestions for indicators to help assess the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy in each domain ◦  get a more disaggregated picture of ‘meso-level’ challenges and implications for country programming ◦  assign priorities to each domain (if possible/ desired) ◦ Identify sector-level risks and priorities  Some suggestions for strategic/ operational options to consider in each domain + further literature included in toolbox18
  • Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1:TAB 3: STATE DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT Country Snapshot SheetTo see indicators suggested for each cell of the State-Building Assessment below, please see FCS, State- Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summarybuilding at a Glance Sheet or refer to to Indicators Spreadsheet in Toolkit Sheet Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational Suggestions & Sources STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS ANALYTICAL INPUTS STATE OTHER DONOR/ CAPACITY/EFFECTI GOVERNMEN CURRENT WB AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] FRAGILITY/RESILIE INTNATIONAL RISKS NEXT STEPS VENESS [C] T PRIORITIES PORTFOLIO NCE PORTFOLIO Does the state have Is the way in which the What are the How/ to what Does the states monopoly a monopoly of force state delivers security What are the next steps for extent do the of force extend over the to the extent that perceived as legitimate? Based on this ACL How/ to what implications your team to How/ to what other donors entire territory/ all people there is limited Is the state perceived as assessment, what extent does the of this strengthen extent does and What analytical living within its borders? crime or armed the only legitimate are the key issues current WB assessment this domain the gvt international products are conflict? source of security? for state-building in portfolio for (country or (eg: through address these partners available/ planned/ the security address these sector) risks WB portfolio, issues? portfolio(s) needed for this domain? issues ? idenitifed (e.g. partnerships Medium Low Medium address these assessment (e.g. in the ORAF)? with other SECURITY issues? PEA, CSA, CFA)? donors etc)? Addresses Addresses Rising Rising Falling 1st priority partially Does not address partially High risk 2nd priority Constitutive Domains/ Survival Functions Insert Insert Insert Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab 4.1] to Tab 4.1] [Copied to Tab 4.1] [Copied to Tab 4.1] [Copied to Tab 4.1] [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab 4.1] 4.1] 4.1] 4.1] 4.1] Are people loyal to the How effective are state over other groups? Is What are the core government How/ to what this loyalty based on a What are the next steps for systems (executive/ Is the way government extent do the shared sense of national How/ to what implications your team to the legislative or makes and enforces How/ to what other donors identity? Do people Based on this ACL extent does the of this strengthen similar/ the decisions perceived as extent does and What analytical recognize the authority of assessment, what current WB assessment this domain judiciary) at making legitimate? the gvt international the government currently are the key issues portfolio for (country or (eg: through POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT products are and enforcing in power? address these partners available for this decisions? for state-building? address these sector) risks WB portfolio, issues? portfolio(s) assessment (e.g. PE issues ? idenitifed (e.g. partnerships address these analyses, previous in the ORAF)? with other issues? CAS, ISN, etc)? Low Low Medium donors etc)? Addresses Addresses Addresses to a Rising Rising Stable 2nd priority partially partially large degree Substantial risk 1st priority Insert Insert Insert Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab 4.2] to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab [Copied to Tab 4.2] 4.2] 4.2] 4.2] 4.2] 19
  • Step 4. INSTITUTIONAL assessment  List of ‘typical’ institutions for each domain: ◦ Prompts to determine ACL of the listed institutions ◦ Option to add country-specific institutions that are not listed  generic questions that can be applied/ adapted to any institution  Helps to: ◦ Identify key institutions and their strengths and weaknesses in terms of ACL ◦  assign priorities and develop more fine-grained, ‘micro-level’ operational options/ implications for country programming  Some general suggestions on strengthening ACL of institutions ◦ e.g. align de jure and de facto authority, build capacity of organizations not just individuals etc.20
  • TAB 4.2 POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT: INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: SECTOR-LEVEL FRAGILITY Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summary Sheet Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational KEY ISSUES KEY INSTITUTIONS KEY RISKS Suggestions & Sources Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENE GOVERNMENT CURRENT WB OTHER DONOR AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] FRAGILITY/RESI RISKS NEXT STEPS SS [C] PRIORITIES PORTFOLIO PORTFOLIO LIENCE Low Low Medium Addresses Addresses Addresses to a 2nd priority Substantial risk 1st priority partially partially large degreePolitical/ Gvt. Domain Rising Rising Stable Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to Here [Copied to Here [Copied to Here [Copied to Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] to Tab 4.2] Tab 4.2] 4.2] Tab 4.2] Tab 4.2] Tab 4.2] Tab 4.2] Tab 4.2] How much trust do citizens/ How much capacity do PFM various social groups/ key elites How much de jure and de facto institutions have to fulfill have in the state about the level How/ to what What are the authority do PFM institutions (basic) PFM functions? Where and distribution of public Based on this extent do the implications of What are the next have? How far does this are the most severe capacity How/ to what How/ to what expenditures and the sources/ assessment, what other donors and this assessment steps/ specific authority extend? What constraints (e.g. lack of extent does the extent does the composition of revenues? Do are the key issues international for (esp. actions for your Executive Institutions - percentage of national resource qualified staff, lack of government current WB people have trust in the most for strenghtening partners implementing team to Public Financial flows do such institutions organizational structures, lack address these portfolio address visible revenue collection, budget this/ these portfolio(s) agency) risks strengthen this Management control? of authorizing legislation, lack issues? these issues ? preparation and execution institution(s)? address these idenitifed (e.g. in institution? of/ misaligned incentives)? institutions? issues? the ORAF)? Medium High Low Addresses Addresses to a Stable Falling Rising 1st priority Does not address Substantial risk 1st priority partially large degreeInsert Relevant Institutions Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Here Here Here Here Here Here Here How much capacity does the How much trust do citizens have civil service have in terms of in the civil service/ public How/ to what What are the How far does the civil service/ Based on this extent do the implications of What are the next human and financial servants/ public administration? Is How/ to what How/ to what public administration extend resources, organizational the lack of trust due to an inability assessment, what extent does the extent does the other donors and this assessment steps/ specific over the entire territory? How Civil Service/General structures, legislative to make and enforce decisions, are the key issues government current WB international for (esp. actions for your much authority does it have? Public Administration framework, incentive structure corruption, lack of representation/ for strenghtening address these portfolio address partners implementing team to etc. to fulfill its functions? inclusion etc.? this/ these portfolio(s) agency) risks strengthen this issues? these issues ? Institutions institution(s)? address these idenitifed (e.g. in institution? Low Medium High issues? the ORAF)? Addresses to a Addresses Rising Rising Falling 2nd priority Does not address Low risk 1st priority large degree partiallyInsert Relevant Institutions Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Here Here Here Here Here Here Here 21
  • Step 5: Country Snapshot and Summary  To get an overall – integrated – picture of the assessment and the implications ◦ Snapshot: all color-based ratings ◦ Summary: text for key issues for state stability and resilience and next steps for the Bank  Review: ◦ Quick ‘glimpse’ of key challenges, priorities, next steps etc. ◦ Ensure consistency – revisit assessments where necessary22
  • TAB 5.1 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed byusing this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-buildingassessment, please refer to the respective tabs. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: NATURE AND CAUSES OF FRAGILITY KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility [Copied to Tab 2] [Copied to Tab 2] OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENES OVERALL STRATEGIC AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] S [C] LEVEL Medium Low High Falling Rising Falling STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS STATE OTHER DONOR/ CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENES GOVERNMENT CURRENT WB AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] FRAGILITY/RESILIENC INTNATIONAL RISKS NEXT STEPS S [C] PRIORITIES PORTFOLIO SECURITY DOMAIN AND E PORTFOLIO INSTITUTIONS Medium Low Medium 1st priority Addresses partially Does not address Addresses partially High risk 2nd priority Rising Rising Falling Core Security Institutions Medium Medium Low (e.g. military, police, etc) 1st priority Addresses partially N/A Addresses partially High risk N/A Military Stable Rising Falling Justice & Rule of Law Low Medium Low Institutions 1st priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Addresses partially Substantial risk 1st priority Judiciary Rising Stable RisingManagement and Oversight Low Low Low Bodies 2nd priority Does not address N/A Does not address High risk N/A Ntl Security Council Stable Rising Stable Security-related PFM Low Medium Low Institutions 3rd priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Does not address Medium risk 2nd priority MoF Rising Stable Rising Local authorities; Civil Low Low Low Society Institions 4th priority Does not address Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Medium risk 3rd priority HR NGOs Stable Rising StableOther Relevant Institutions Medium Low High 3rd priority Addresses to a large degree N/A Does not address Low risk N/A Police Rising Stable Falling
  • TAB 5.2 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessmentcompleted by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information foreach level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility [Copied to Tab 2] [Copied to Tab 2] STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS STATE OVERALL STRATEGIC AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS [C] FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL LEVEL Medium Low High Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Falling Rising Falling STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED STATE DOMAIN STATE DOMAIN LEVEL CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS STATE AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS PRIORITY LEVEL FOR LEVEL [C] FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE NEXT STEPS Medium Low Medium Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here SECURITY High risk 2nd priority SECURITY [Copied to Tab 4.1] [Copied to Tab 4.1] Rising Rising Falling Low Low Medium Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here POLITICAL/POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT Substantial risk 1st priority [Copied to Tab 4.2] [Copied to Tab 4.2] GOVERNMENT Rising Rising Stable Medium Low Medium Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here ECONOMIC Substantial risk 3rd priority ECONOMIC [Copied to Tab 4.3] [Copied to Tab 4.3] Stable Rising Rising Medium Low Stable SOCIAL/SERVICE Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here SOCIAL/SERVIC Low risk 2nd priority DELIVERY [Copied to Tab 4.4] [Copied to Tab 4.4] E DELIVERY Rising Rising Stable INSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL AND AND STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONSORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL ORGANIZATION AL LEVEL RECOMMENDED CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS STATE SECURITYSECURITY INSTITUTIONS AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS PRIORITY LEVEL FOR [C] FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE INSTITUTIONS NEXT STEPS Core SecurityCore Security Institutions Institutions (e.g. Medium Medium Low(e.g. military, police, etc) military, police, Insert Assessment Here High risk Insert Assessment Here N/A etc) Insert Military Stable Rising Falling Assessment Here Justice & Rule Justice & Rule of Law Low Medium Low of Law Institutions Insert Assessment Here Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here 1st priority 24 Institutions Insert Judiciary Rising Stable Rising Assessment Here