Country Ownership: What does it really mean?

Janet Entwistle and Filippo Cavassini

An Operational Approach to Assessing Country Ownership of PRSs with a Focus on the Role of

Government Institutions

PRS Implementation Series

June 15, 2005

An Operational Approach to Assessing Country Ownership of PRSs

Define country ownership operationally to: help countries develop better processes for

formulating country-owned development strategies

help Bank staff and staff of other agencies to better understand and advance the concept of country ownership

Methodology

Review of literature on country ownership Four detailed country case studies (Bolivia,

Ghana, Kyrgyz Republic and Senegal) chosen based on other PRS reviews and case study efforts, including CDF Progress Reports Countries among those thought to have made

progress in developing a country owned PRS as their national development strategy

All cases have strengths and weaknesses – none have full country ownership

Beyond the case study countries

Review of 59 countries Gives understanding of extent of

country ownership of PRS, alongside link to long-term vision and budget, alignment

of external resources and focus on results

What is country ownership?

Johnson and Wasty (1993), OED (1995), Killick (1998) Locus of initiative, intellectual conviction, public support

from leadership, stakeholders and institutionalization Definition difficult to apply operationally and

participation often used as a proxy OED (2004) – clearer milestones needed for what

ownership is expected to achieve

Towards a common framework for assessing country ownership of PRSs

Common framework of analysis – 6 factors of country ownership

I. Leadership within and participation across the executive

II. Role and impact of national institutionsIII. Government-stakeholder dialogueIV. Role and impact of internal partnersV. Role and impact of external partnersVI. Political and economic shocks

17 indicators within these 6 factors

Focus on the role of government institutions

Common framework of analysis—2 factors of country ownership

I. Leadership within and participation across the executive

II. Role and impact of national institutions7 indicators within these 2 factors

I. Leadership within and participation across the executive

1. PRS has a clear role vis-à-vis other national development strategies

2. Finance and planning functions are clearly aligned, and the PRS coordination function is backed by high-level leadership

3. PRS formulation and implementation are embedded in interministerial coordination mechanisms and linked to a medium-term expenditure framework and national budget processes

4. Line ministries systematically align sector action plans with PRS priorities

5. PRS M&E system integrated into country-level system

II. Role and impact of national institutions

6. Parliamentary committees contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring

7. Local development plans are compatible with PRS priorities

III. Government-stakeholder dialogue

8. Government and stakeholders have a mechanism for systematic consultation, with mutually agreed objectives and timetable.

9. Capacity building supports the development of negotiation skills across government and stakeholders.

10. Communication strategy includes translating PRS into local languages.

11. M&E system incorporates information exchange between government and stakeholders to inform strategy refinements

IV. Role and impact of internal partners

12. Umbrella CSOs and business associations consult with members before engaging the government on the PRS.

V. Role and impact of external partners

13. Financing and technical assistance are tailored to country circumstances.

14. Assistance strategies are aligned with PRS priorities and PRS business processes match the country’s systems.

15. Consultations for assistance strategies are tied to PRS participatory structures.

16. Consultative meetings are held on a regular basis in the country and chaired/co-chaired by the government.

VI. Political and economic shocks

17. Interruptions due to political and economic events, including electoral cycles, are anticipated and factored in.

1. Clear role vis-à-vis other national development strategies—Overview

10 of 59 countries PRS is the only medium-term strategy linked to long-term vision

7 of 59 countries PRS is being integrated into traditional/constitutional planning processes

PRS participatory and strategic approach helping integrate pro-poor focus into national planning processes in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Lao PDR, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

29 of 59 countries PRS not yet widely considered by policymakers as the national development strategy

13 of 59 countries, mostly LICUS, PRS not yet completed

1. Clear role vis-à-vis other national development strategies—Country experience

Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyz CDF is the long-term development vision

through 2010 NPRS is the medium-term strategy through 2005 to

guide vision implementation

Uganda PEAP is the national vision for poverty eradication

through 2017 Every 3-4 years PEAP updates to identify medium-

term policies

1. Clear role vis-à-vis other national development strategies—Country experience (cont.)

Pakistan Ten-Year Perspective Development Plan for 2001-11 is

traditional federal development plan linked to five-year investment plan (MTDF)

PRS for FY03-08 covering development expenditures at the federal and provincial levels

with limited links with the Perspective Development Plan and MTDF PRS only framework guiding provincial expenditures

Medium-term Development Framework (MTDF) for 2005-10 as the new five-year plan, linked to PRS instead of Perspective Development Plan

Yemen Strategic Vision through 2025 PRS 2003-05 coexisting with 2nd Five-year Plan 2001-05 3rd Five-year Plan 2006-10 integrating PRS and MDGs

1. Clear role vis-à-vis other national development strategies—Country experience (cont.)

Bolivia Constitutionally-mandated Plan General de Desarrollo

Económico y Social (PGDES) based on National Dialogue 1997 and guiding development policies through 2002

EBRP based on National Dialogue 2000, with limited links with the PGDES

Senegal Perspective Study through 2015 developed by the

Ministry of Planning DSRP, coordinated by Ministry of Finance, coexisting

with constitutionally mandated 5-year 10th Economic and Social Development Plan prepared by Ministry of Planning and not well linked to long-term Perspective Study

2. Finance and planning functions aligned, and PRS coordination backed by leadership—

Overview

27 of 59 countries one institution in charge of coordinating PRS process

6 Ministry of Finance 8 Ministry of Planning. 7 Ministry of Finance and Planning 6 Presidency or Prime Minister’s office

32 of 59 countries more than one institution in charge coordination can be problematic, time consuming and costly

2. Finance and planning functions aligned, and PRS coordination backed by leadership—

Country experience

Uganda Ministry of Planning and Ministry of Finance merged

in 1992 to enhance coordination of government policies

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development leads PEAP implementation and coordinates the preparation of PEAP Progress Reports and PEAP Revisions

2. Finance and planning functions aligned, and PRS coordination backed by leadership—

Country experience (cont.)

Mozambique The Ministry of Planning and Finance (MPF) took the

initiative on PARPA preparation and had been in charge of PARPA updating

The President, elected in February 2005, has substituted the MPF with two separate Ministries: the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development

3. PRS embedded in interministerial coordination mechanisms, linked to MTEF/budget—Overview

6 of 59 countries MTEF is helping increase expenditures in the priority areas identified in the PRS

24 of 59 countries MTEF is under development but not yet facilitating strong link between PRS and budget

29 of 59 countries MTEF not yet under development

3. PRS embedded in interministerial coordination mechanisms, linked to MTEF/budget—Country

experience (cont.)

Bosnia and Herzegovina Coordination Board of Economic Development and EU

integration, including the Chairman of the BiH Council of Ministers, BiH line ministers, as well as the prime ministers and finance ministers of both entities, responsible for overall government policies, including PRSP and EU integration

Finance ministers of both entities prepared MTEFs based on PRSP that guide preparation of the entities’ budgets and the BiH budget

3. PRS embedded in interministerial coordination mechanisms, linked to MTEF/budget—Country

experience

Pakistan National PRSP Steering Committee, chaired by the

Minister of Finance and composed of line ministers, the Planning Commission and Additional Chief Secretaries of the provinces, oversees PRSP implementation and reports to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the National Economic Council

Federal Budget FY05 starts shifting allocations in line with PRSP and Medium-term Budget Frameworks are in place in some of the provinces

3. PRS embedded in interministerial coordination mechanisms, linked to MTEF/budget—Country

experience (cont.)

Rwanda Interministerial Committee on Poverty chaired by the

Prime Minister coordinates PRS implementation

Line ministries prepare sector MTEFs that feed into a macro MTEF, underpinning budget preparation

4. Sector action plans aligned with PRS—Overview

36 of 59 countries sector action plans are aligned with PRS

23 of 59 countries sector action plans are not yet aligned with PRS

4. Sector action plans aligned with PRS—Country experience

Mozambique Line ministries were significantly involved in PARPA

formulation to incorporate previously developed sector strategies

Sector strategies are being updated in line with PARPA and integrated into a constitutionally-mandated annual Plano Económico e Social guiding government policies

4. Sector action plans aligned with PRS—Country experience (cont.)

Malawi Ministry of Economic Development and Planning

working with line ministries to align policies with MPRS

Senegal Line ministries have prepared sector operation

programs identifying actions to meet DSRP targets, with timetable and budget

Government workshop to harmonize and coordinate them

5. PRS M&E system integrated into country-level system—Overview

3 of 59 countries a country-level M&E system tracks PRS implementation

23 of 59 countries action is being taken to develop a county-level M&E system

33 of 59 countries there are plans to develop a country-level M&E system incorporating PRS M&E

5. PRS M&E system integrated into country-level system—Country experience

Uganda There is a single M&E system for both government

and external partner needs

Performance indicators are spelled out in the Policy and Results Matrix of the revised PEAP

Benchmarks for assessing annual progress feed into the government progress status reports transmitted to Parliament during preparation of the annual budget

5. PRS M&E system integrated into country-level system—Country experience (cont.)

Mozambique Monitoring of PARPA activities and programs and

MDGs integrated in semi-annual and annual Progress Reports of the constitutionally-mandated Plano Económico e Social (PES), transmitted to Parliament

Link of line ministries’ M&E systems with PES timing and indicators developing

5. PRS M&E system integrated into country-level system—Country experience (cont.)

Bolivia EBRP M&E is conducted through a Sistema de

Seguimiento y Evaluacion (SIGMA) integrated into a broader government information management system under development

It is coordinated across government institutions, although now is operational only at the central level reaching a limited number of ministries

Some external partners are harmonizing their M&E systems with SIGMA

Goal is to expand SIGMA across the executive, incorporate regions and municipalities and harmonize external partners’ M&E around it

6. Parliamentary committees contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring—International

experience

7 of 59 countries parliamentary committees contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring

5 parliament approved PRS

52 of 59 countries parliamentary committees do not contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring

13 parliament approved PRS

6. Parliamentary committees contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring—Country experience

Ghana In 2002 Parliament formed a special committee on

poverty reduction, assembling parliamentarians from standing committees, to discuss the GPRS

Parliament approved the Coordinated Program for Economic and Social Development, Ghana’s constitutionally mandated development vision, in December 2002 and the GPRS in early 2003

The special committee continues to report to the plenary on the focus, content and adequacy of GPRS implementation

6. Parliamentary committees contribute to PRS formulation and monitoring—Country experience

(cont.)Honduras

The National Congress is constitutionally mandated to approve development plans and approved the ERP in 2001, the 2002-06 Government Plan presented by the new Government and based on the ERP in 2002 and the ERP Progress Report in 2003

In 2004 the National Congress approved a Poverty

Reduction Law identifying the ERP goals as the objectives for the country’s social policy through 2015 and providing for the submission of ERP Progress Reports to the National Congress

The Budget Committee of the National Congress is responsible for overseeing the alignment of the general budget with the ERP

7. Local development plans are compatible with PRS priorities—Overview

7 of 59 countries there is evidence of local development plans prepared in alignment with PRS priorities

52 of 59 countries there is no evidence local development plans reflecting PRS PRS priorities

7. Local development plans are compatible with PRS priorities—Country experience

Pakistan The Government encouraged each province to draft

its own PRS

Three of the four provinces completed a PRS, which served as input for the national PRS

The PRS of the poorest province was not completed in time and remains in draft form

7. Local development plans are compatible with PRS priorities—Country experience (cont.)

Bolivia Municipalities develop Programas Operativos

Anuales to have access to financial resources, based on five-year development plans identifying development objectives at the local level

Municipalities completed five-year development plans in 1999, 2000 and 2001

The EBRP, launched in 2000 and completed in 2001, allocates HIPC resources to municipalities with limited links to municipal development plans

Challenges

New emphasis on domestic versus external accountability can help enhance common understanding and application of country ownership of PRSs.

Integrating PRSs into national planning processes is key to broadening country ownership across government institutions.

Institutionalization of stakeholder participation and external dimensions of country ownership also important.