The document provides an overview of an assessment toolkit for state-building in fragile states. The toolkit includes guidance, an interactive Excel-based tool, indicators, and background papers. It aims to help donor and country teams arrive at a common understanding of state-building challenges and implications for programming. The toolkit provides a conceptual framework that assesses states across three dimensions - authority, capacity and legitimacy. It guides teams through a multi-step process to evaluate these dimensions at different levels, from the overall socio-political context to specific institutions. The process surfaces challenges and risks, and identifies implications for strategic and operational planning. The toolkit standardizes discussion of fragile states but is customizable based on user needs.

1. State-Building in Fragile States:
An Assessment Toolkit

2. 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
approach
2

3. 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

4. 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)
challenges
4

5. 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

6. Structural Causes of Fragility
Macro-/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 L
Specific 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

7. 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 steps
7

8. Structural Causes of Fragility
Macro-/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 portfolio
Specific 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 implications
11

12. The SBAT in detail

13. 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 context
13

14. 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

15. 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 they
Political/ 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

16. 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

17. 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 & IMPLICATIONS
ANALYTICAL 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 identified
What 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

18. 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
toolbox
18

19. Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1:
TAB 3: STATE DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT Country Snapshot Sheet
To 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 Summary
building 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 INT'NATIONAL 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 state's 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

20. 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

21. 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 degree
Political/ 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 degree
Insert 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 partially
Insert 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

22. 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 necessary
22

23. TAB 5.1 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by
using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building
assessment, 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 INT'NATIONAL 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 Rising
Management 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 Stable
Other 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

24. TAB 5.2 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment
completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for
each 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 & IMPLICATIONS
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL ORGANIZATION
AL LEVEL
RECOMMENDED
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS STATE SECURITY
SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AUTHORITY [A] LEGITIMACY [L] DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS PRIORITY LEVEL FOR
[C] FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE INSTITUTIONS
NEXT STEPS
Core Security
Core 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