2019 J U LY 2019 Strengthening Debt Management Capacity Acknowledgments This report is produced by the Office of the Chief Economist for the Africa Region. The report was managed by Gerard Kambou, under the direction of Albert G. Zeufack. The report team was composed of Gerard Kambou, Vijdan Korman, Paul Brenton, Mariano Cortes, Natasha De Andrade Falcao, Kebede Feda, Arden Finn, Daniel John Kirkwood, David Maleki, Eric David Manes, Waleed Haider Malik, Jose Montes, Moritz Piatti, Anna, Reva, Penny Williams, and Nicholas Stephen Zmijewski. Valuable inputs and comments were received from Mehwish Ashraf, Marina Bakanova, William G. Battaile, Faniry Nantenaina Razafimanantsoa Harivelo, Priscilla F. Kandoole, Wilfried A. Kouame, Gloria Aitalohi Joseph-Raji, Rick Emery Tsouck Ibounde, Peace Aimee Niyibizi, and country teams. The report was edited by Sandra Gain. The online and print publication was produced by Bill Pragluski, and the cover design was by Rajesh Sharma. Maura K Leary managed media relations and dissemination. Beatrice Berman provided support for production and dissemination. Kenneth Omondi provided logistics support. b J U LY 2019 Strengthening Debt Management Capacity ASSESSING AFRICA’S POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS © 2019 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@ worldbank.org. Cover design: Rajesh Sharma Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2018 CPIA Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Analysis of the CPIA Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CPIA Africa: Compare Your Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Country Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Benin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Burundi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Cabo Verde. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Cameroon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Central African Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Chad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Comoros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Congo, Democratic Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Congo, Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Côte d’Ivoire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Eritrea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Gambia, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Guinea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Madagascar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Malawi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Mali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Mauritania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Mozambique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Niger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 São Tomé and Príncipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 South Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Tanzania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Appendix A: CPIA Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Appendix B: Country Groups and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 i List of Boxes Box B.1 Who Are the Top Performers in Doing Business?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Box C.1 Entrepreneurship and Women’s Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 List of Figures Figure 1 Real GDP Per Capita Growth, by Country Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2 Incidence of Extreme Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA Countries, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 3 Fiscal Deficit, by Country Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 4 Government Expenditures and Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 5 Evolution of Government Debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 6 Government Debt by Country Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 7 Changes in the Composition of Public External Debt 2010-17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 8 International Bond Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 9 Risk of Debt Distress in SSA IDA, 2012 and 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 10 Government Debt by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 11 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 12 CPIA Score and Change in Score, Selected Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 13 Trends in CPIA Clusters, 2010–18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 14 CPIA Scores, by CPIA Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 15 CPIA Scores, by Country Group and Cluster, 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure A.1 Economic Management Cluster: Trend over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure A.2 Economic Management Cluster Scores, by Country Group, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure A.3 Changes in Cluster A: Economic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure A.4 Countries with Changes in the Debt Policy and Management Score, 2017 and 2018. . . . . . . . 19 Figure B.1 Structural Policies Cluster: Trend over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure B.2 Average Applied Customs Tariff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure B.3 Taxes on International Trade (Imports and Exports) as a Percentage of Government Revenue. . 23 Figure B.4 Financial Sector CPIA scores, by Fragility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure B.5 Lending-Deposit Spread, by Region, 2003-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure B.6A CPIA Scores in Fragile and Resource-Rich Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure B.6B Ease of Doing Business Scores in Fragile and Resource-Rich Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure B.7 Areas Where Economies Are Coverging and Areas Where They Are Not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure B.8 Ease of Doing Business Scores among Economies in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure C.1 Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure C.2 Distribution of CPIA Scores for Equity of Public Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure C.3 Equity and Public Resource Use CPIA Scores, by Country and Fragility Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure C.4 Correlation between Statistical Capacity and Equity and Public Resource Use Scores. . . . . . . . 33 Figure C.5 CPIA Ratings for Health, by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure C.6 Health Score Compared with the Cluster Average Score: Social Inclusion/Equity . . . . . . . . . . 35 ii Figure C.7 Average Education Score Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure C.8 Education Score Distribution in Fragile and Non-Fragile Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure C.9 Human Capital Index Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure C.10 Education Score Distribution by Quartile of the HCI Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure C.11 Social Safety Net Programs in IDA Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure C.12 Financing of Social Safety Net Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure C.13 Distribution of CPIA Scores for ENRM for IDA Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2018. . . . . . . . 42 Figure C.14 2018 CPIA Scores for ENRM Plotted against Total CPIA Scores without ENRM Scores. . . . . . . . 42 Figure D.1 Public Sector Management and Institutions Cluster Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure D.2 Governance Cluster Scores: Comparing IDA Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with Other IDA Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure D.3 Governance Scores: Fragile versus Non-Fragile Comparators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure D.4 Changes in the Cluster D Scores in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 List of Tables Table A.1 Change in the Economic Management Cluster Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table C.1 Number and Share of Countries, by CPIA Health Score Brackets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table C.2 Average HCI and LAYS, by Education Score in the CPIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table D.1 Changes in Governance Cluster Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Map Map C.1 Environment Scores for 2018 African IDA Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iii iv Executive Summary u The 2019 Africa Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) report covers the period January to December 2018. Over this period, the average quality of policies and institutions in International Development Association (IDA)-eligible countries remained unchanged, amid decelerating growth across the region. The overall CPIA score for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.1 in 2018, the same as 2017, reflecting the slow progress in improving the quality of policy and institutional frameworks in the region. u However, the regional average score masks significant divergence in country performance across policy areas. Most notably, macroeconomic management weakened in 2018. In several countries, inconsistent fiscal policies and weak debt management undermined macroeconomic resilience. In contrast, the policies for social inclusion strengthened with gains in gender equality, health and education, and equity of public resource use. Structural policies softened, amid slow progress in trade policy and facilitation reforms, low financial development, and slow convergence toward the best business regulatory environment in key areas. Governance policies and institutions displayed no strong upward trend. The rule of law, accountability and transparency, and the quality of public administration remained major areas of weakness that impede the efficient use of public resources across the region. u Partly reflecting this uneven performance, per capita income growth has stagnated in recent years, and poverty headcounts remain elevated. Accelerating growth and the pace of poverty reduction in the region’s IDA countries will necessitate faster structural transformation along with the accumulation of fundamental capabilities in human capital and institutions and some degree of macroeconomic stability. Against this backdrop, the 2018 CPIA results reinforce the call for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to accelerate the pace of policy and institutional reforms to foster rapid economic growth and poverty reduction. Three areas require immediate attention. • First, the quality of debt management needs to be strengthened. The buildup in public debt has continued in the context of weak debt management systems. The necessary improvements in the effectiveness of debt management need to be implemented. The number of IDA countries in the region at high risk of debt distress or in debt distress increased further in 2018. Strong debt management capacity can enhance debt transparency, minimize contingent liabilities, render fiscal frameworks more conducive to effective countercyclical policies, and mitigate the pressures that lead to rapid debt accumulation. Over time, improved debt management would help strengthen macroeconomic stability. This year’s report focuses on debt management. • Second, business regulatory reforms need to accelerate to support private sector development and job creation. Due to the slow pace of reforms, IDA countries in Sub- Saharan Africa are not converging toward the best business regulatory performance in some areas critical for private sector development including, most notably, in getting electricity. The average cost to obtain an electricity connection remains prohibitively high in many countries. 1 • Third, sustained efforts are needed to improve domestic revenue mobilization. In many countries, the yield of the domestic tax system has declined, as widespread exemptions narrowed the tax base amid weak capacity in customs and low compliance of taxpayers. Rationalizing tax exemptions and improving the efficiency of current tax systems could yield more revenue for countries to finance investments in human capital and infrastructure and ensure debt sustainability. Enforcing the rule of law, which can effectively protect property rights, strengthening accountability and transparency mechanisms, and vigorously combatting corruption remain critical. u IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa continued to lag IDA countries in other regions on most policy and institutional measures, on average, with diverging performances between fragile and non-fragile countries. The level of performance of non-fragile IDA countries in Sub- Saharan Africa was broadly similar to that of other non-fragile IDA countries in 2018, with the notable exception of the policies on social inclusion, where they underperformed with larger gaps on gender equality. This highlights the need for the region’s non-fragile IDA countries to promote inclusive growth. u By contrast, fragile countries in Sub-Saharan Africa registered notable improvements in social inclusion. In the areas of gender equality, human development, and environmental sustainability, their level of performance was stronger than that of other fragile IDA countries. Although the gains are modest, these results are important and bode well for efforts to tackle the drivers of conflict and exclusion. Successful transitions out of fragility in Sub-Saharan Africa were underpinned by improvements in service delivery. 2 Introduction CPIA Africa documents the progress countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are making in raising the quality of their institutions and policies to foster sustainable growth, poverty reduction, and the effective use of development assistance. It reviews the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) scores, which reflect the level of a country’s performance measured against 16 criteria that represent the policy and institutional dimensions of an effective poverty reduction strategy. The criteria are grouped into four clusters—economic management (cluster A), structural policies (cluster B), policies for social inclusion and equity (cluster C), and public sector management and institutions (cluster D)—with each criterion focusing on the policies and institutional arrangements that are under the control of policy makers (see Appendix A). For each criterion, country performance is rated on a scale of 1 (weak) to 6 (strong). World Bank staff determine the ratings, using a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments. The CPIA scores are a key determinant of the World Bank’s performance-based allocation of International Development Association (IDA) resources, which seek to help the world’s poorest countries boost growth and shared prosperity. The 2019 CPIA Africa report presents the latest assessment of the quality of the region’s policies and institutions. It analyzes the 2018 CPIA scores across countries and country groups; discusses performance under each cluster based on fragility, resilience of growth, and IDA regions; and highlights areas of progress, challenges, and possible reforms. The focus of this year’s report is on strengthening debt management capacity. With many IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa at high risk of debt distress or in debt distress, improving public debt management and transparency has become critical. The buildup in debt has continued in a context of weak debt management systems, resulting in heightened debt vulnerabilities. Effective debt management can help reduce the costs associated with the debt buildup and greater debt transparency can mitigate the economic and political pressures that lead to rapid debt accumulation. IDA countries in Sub- Saharan Africa need to adopt the best debt management practices. RECENT ECONOMIC AND FISCAL DEVELOPMENTS The economic recovery in IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa has continued but at a slower- than-expected pace, partly reflecting a less supportive external environment including moderating growth in the global economy, fluctuating commodity prices, and tightening global financing conditions. After rebounding to 3.3 percent in 2017, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth increased only slightly to 3.4 percent in 2018, remaining barely above the rate of population growth. Per capita GDP growth averaged just 0.6 percent in 2018, after rebounding to 0.5 percent in 2017. Although considerable heterogeneity persists, with some countries—Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Rwanda—expanding at a faster pace, per capita GDP growth remains well below the 8 percent growth needed to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030. Per capita growth was negative among resource-rich countries, despite some improvements, and continued to slow in non-resource- 3 rich countries (figure 1). Real per capita Figure 1: Real GDP Per Capita Growth, by Country Group GDP growth About 43 percent of the 10 has remained population in IDA countries negative among 8 in Sub-Saharan Africa live the region’s 6 below the poverty line. Real GDP per capita (%) resource-rich 4 IDA countries Poverty headcounts at and slowed in 2 the international poverty non-resource- 0 rich IDA line—$1.90/day in 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 –2 countries. purchasing power parity –4 exchange rates—are –6 Sub-Saharan Africa, IDA countries Sub-Saharan Africa, IDA countries, resource rich especially elevated among Sub-Saharan Africa, IDA countries, non-resource rich fragile countries (figure 2). Source: World Bank. Poverty Figure 2: Incidence of Extreme Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA Countries, 2015 (US$1.90 a day) headcounts at the $1.90/day Sub-Saharan Africa, IDA countries 43.0 line are elevated Sub-Saharan Africa 41.0 in IDA Benin 49.5 Burkina Faso 42.8 countries in Burundi 74.8 Sub-Saharan Cabo Verde 7.2 Africa, Cameroon 22.8 especially Central African Republic 77.7 among fragile Chad 33.9 countries. Comoros 18.1 Congo, Democratic… 71.7 Congo, Republic of 34.9 Cote d'Ivoire 28.2 Ethiopia 27.5 Gambia, The 11.0 Ghana 13.2 Guinea 32.8 Guinea-Bissau 65.3 Kenya 37.3 Lesotho 54.8 Liberia 39.4 Madagascar 77.5 Malawi 70.2 Mali 47.8 Mauritania 6.2 Mozambique 61.6 Niger 44.2 Nigeria 47.0 Rwanda 55.2 Sao Tome and Principe 25.8 Senegal 33.9 Sierra Leone 48.5 South Sudan 73.3 Sudan 7.7 Tanzania 40.7 Togo 49.2 Uganda 39.4 Zambia 57.5 Zimbabwe 16.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Source: World Bank. 4 DEBT VULNERABILITIES High and rising debt burdens have left many IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa vulnerable to fiscal risks and constrained the ability of fiscal policy to support growth and development objectives. The median fiscal deficit in the region’s IDA Figure 3: Fiscal Deficit, by Country Group Improvements in fiscal balances countries rose from 3.9 percent 0.0 among resource- of GDP in 2017 to 4.1 percent -1.0 rich countries of GDP in 2018. A widening of were offset by a -2.0 widening of the the fiscal deficit among non- Percent of GDP -3.0 fiscal deficits in resource-rich countries more non-resource- -4.0 rich countries. than offset improvements in the -5.0 fiscal balance in resource-rich countries (figure 3). -6.0 -7.0 The median fiscal deficit in 2015 2016 2017 2018e 2019f the region’s resource-rich IDA SSA IDA median SSA IDA, resource rich SSA IDA, non-resource rich countries narrowed from 4.3 Source: World Bank. percent of GDP in 2017 to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2018. Fiscal balances improved for most oil exporters, supported by higher oil prices in the first half of 2018. In the Republic of Congo, for example, the overall fiscal balance shifted from a deficit of 7½ percent of GDP to a surplus of 5½ percent of GDP. However, in Nigeria, the fiscal deficit is estimated to have reached 4.3 percent of GDP in 2018, up from 3.9 percent in 2017, as non-oil revenue continued to underperform. A recovery in metals prices supported an improvement in the fiscal balances in some metals exporters, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mauritania. However, in others, weak revenue outturns (Liberia) and a rapid scaling up of expenditure (Zambia) caused the fiscal deficit to rise further. The fiscal balances for the Figure 4: Government Expenditures and Revenues (% of GDP) In 2018, region’s non-resource-rich government 29 revenue rose in IDA countries deteriorated. resource-rich 27 Revenues fell by nearly 1 countries, and expenditure percentage point of GDP, on 25 slowed. In average, while expenditures 23 Non-resource- eased only moderately (figure Percent rich countries, 21 government 4). The median fiscal deficit revenue fell increased from 3.8 percent of 19 significantly, GDP in 2017 to 4.1 percent of 17 while expenditure GDP in 2018, with diverging remained steady. 15 fiscal developments across 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019f countries. In Senegal, the fiscal Government expenditures Government expenditures deficit widened to 3.4 percent (non-resource rich) (resource rich) Govenrment revenues Govenrment revenues of GDP as revenue fell. In The (non- resource rich) (resource rich) Gambia, Lesotho, and Uganda, Sources: International Monetary Fund; World Economic Outlook Database. fiscal balances deteriorated 5 significantly. Although the Government Figure 5: Evolution of Government Debt (% of GDP) debt has fiscal deficits narrowed in 180 continued to rise Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya, in the region’s 160 they remained elevated. IDA countries. 140 120 As a result, the median 100 government debt-to-GDP 80 ratio in IDA countries 60 in Sub-Saharan Africa 40 rose further in 2018 and reached 54.9 percent of 20 GDP—an 18.5 percentage 0 points of GDP increase 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 since 2013 (figure Average Median 25th percentile 75th percentile 5). This increase was driven by non-resource- Government Figure 6: Government Debt by Country Groups (% of GDP) rich countries as they debt is notably high among the 60 continued to borrow region’s non- 55 to finance large public resource-rich investment programs IDA countries. 50 (figure 6). More than 45 half of the region’s IDA countries saw an increase 40 in their debt level in 35 2018. Government debt increased by more than 30 2015 2016 2017 2018e 2019f 5 percentage points of SSA IDA median SSA IDA, resource rich SSA IDA, non-resource rich GDP in one-fifth of the countries and exceeded Sources: International Monetary Fund; World Economic Outlook Database; World Bank. 60 percent of GDP in a third of the countries. Government debt increased by close to 10 percentage points of GDP in Zambia and by more than 20 percentage points of GDP in Sudan. The drivers of the debt increase varied considerably across countries but included higher fiscal deficits, currency depreciations against the U.S. dollar, rising government borrowing costs, and the reporting of previously undisclosed debt. In addition to its rising level, the composition of public debt changed significantly (figure 7). The share of foreign currency bonds in total external debt increased by 10 percent, while the shares of debt owed to commercial and non-Paris Club creditors have risen by 5 percent 6 since 2010. At the same time, Figure 7: Changes in the Composition of Public External Debt 2010–17 The composition financing from multilateral (% change in share of total) of external debt institutions and Paris Club has shifted creditors declined significantly. Bonds from traditional sources of As IDA countries in Sub-Saharan financing toward Non-Paris Club bilateral Africa have gained access to more market- based debt and international capital markets, Commercial new creditors. sovereign bond issuances have increased rapidly. Between Paris Club bilateral 2013 and 2017, the region’s IDA Multilateral countries issued on average a total of US$3.9 billion per -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 year, with an average issuance Source: World Bank. size of US$1 billion. In 2018, bond issuances totaled more Figure 8: International Bond Issuance International bond issuance US$13 billion, with the average 14 reached a record issuance rising to nearly US$3 high in 2018. 12 billion (figure 8). 10 The increase in debt levels US Billions$ 8 together with the shift of external debt toward more 6 market-based instruments 4 and more expensive and 2 riskier sources of finance have 0 increased debt vulnerabilities 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 substantially among IDA Benin Cameroon Côte d'Ivoire Ethiopia Ghana Kenya countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Tanzania Zambia At end-2018, nearly half of the Source: World Bank. region’s IDA countries were at high risk of debt distress or in Figure 9: Risk of Debt Distress in SSA IDA, 2012 and 2018 The number of debt distress (figure 9), a group IDA countries that included a large number of 50 2018 in Sub-Saharan Africa at high fragile countries (figure 10). The 45 2018 risk of debt 40 2012 high government debt levels distress or in 35 2012 make it difficult to conduct debt distress Percentage of Total 30 2012 has increased countercyclical policies and substantially. 25 constitute a drag on potential 20 growth, in part because 2018 15 high debt service costs are 10 crowding out other important 5 government spending needs, 0 including growth-enhancing Low risk Moderate risk High risk or in distress public investment or social Sources: International Monetary Fund; World Bank. safety nets. 7 Many of the Figure 10: Government Debt by Country (% of GDP) region’s IDA countries at 180 high risk of debt 160 distress or in debt distress 140 are fragile 120 countries. 100 80 60 40 20 0 Congo, Dem. Rep. Nigeria Zimbabwe Comoros Tanzania Mali Cameroon Guinea Lesotho Madagascar Liberia Rwanda Uganda Burkina Faso South Sudan Chad Central African Rep. Côte d'Ivoire Benin Niger Guinea-Bissau Kenya Malawi Burundi Ghana Ethiopia Senegal Sierra Leone Zambia Togo São Tomé & Príncipe Gambia, The Mauritania Mozambique Cabo Verde Eritrea Sudan Congo, Rep. Sources: International Monetary Fund; World Economic Outlook Database; World Bank. STRENGTHENING PUBLIC DEBT MANAGEMENT With high and rising debt vulnerabilities, effective debt management has become critical. There is need to ensure not only that the government can borrow when it needs to, but that its debt is managed in such a way that the country is not unduly exposed to risks from economic shocks. Challenges In many countries, the rapid increase in government debt has not been underpinned by efforts to improve the quality of debt management. Despite some gains, significant weaknesses in debt transparency, monitoring, and reporting persist. The recent cases of hidden debts among the region’s IDA countries point to continued low capacity in debt recording, weak legal frameworks, and the need to improve debt reporting and monitoring. Hidden debts distort the risk assessment in both policy surveillance and the market pricing of sovereign debt1. Debt transparency enables debt managers to accurately assess funding needs and portfolio costs accurately. In addition to the need for greater transparency, a sound practice in public debt management is that it is properly embedded in long-term macroeconomic objectives. A sound macro-fiscal policy framework requires that public debt is sustainable and can be serviced at reasonable costs. Many countries have set up a debt management unit to facilitate the coordination between public debt management and macroeconomic policies. However, while the benefits of integration are widely recognized, few countries consistently align medium-term debt management processes with fiscal policy formulation, reflecting a lack of accountability and weak capacity and statistical information. 1 S. Horn , C. M. Reinhart, and C. Trebesch, 2019, “China’s Overseas Lending,” NBER Working Paper 26050, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 8 A robust public debt management system is underpinned by a debt management strategy that operationalizes the government’s medium-term objectives, including by ensuring financing needs are met and developing a borrowing strategy that leads to a composition of debt that is resilient to risks. Across IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, medium-term debt management strategies are more common now than in the past. However, their quality is uneven, and implementation is uncertain. Partly as a result, measures needed to mitigate risks identified in debt sustainability analyses are not implemented in a timely and consistent manner. Yet, as the experience of countries in debt distress has shown, high debt service costs can cause debt dynamics to deteriorate amid unexpected changes in exchange rates, interest rates, and commodity prices. Remedies Decisive actions are needed now to strengthen debt management and debt transparency in the region’s IDA countries. Building on the progress achieved, and on the lessons learned in recent years, these actions would involve further improvements in debt recording, stronger coordination between debt management and macroeconomic policies, increased public availability of information on debt management policies, and greater accountability of agencies responsible for debt management, supported by a strong governance and audit framework.2 • Debt transparency. For many countries, a key priority is to strengthen debt recording, monitoring, reporting, and auditing. This not only promotes transparency and accountability, but also better compilation and monitoring of public debt ensure that fiscal risks are detected pro-actively and assessed adequately before they materialize. • Debt management strategies. Well-designed medium-term debt strategies are needed to provide a detailed analysis of costs and risks under a variety of economic and financial scenarios, help formulate measures that can mitigate fiscal risks, and ensure government borrowing is sustainable, taking into account the constraints the government faces. Debt managers must have information on contingent liabilities to take them into account in formulating debt strategies. • Implementation capacity. Execution of medium-term strategies needs to ensure that the composition of public debt is consistent with debt sustainability. A framework of systems and controls is needed to implement the debt management strategy and the financing plan that flows from it and to manage other risks. • Coordination mechanisms. Strong coordination between debt management and other macroeconomic policies is critical, including to ensure that debt management policy and strategic portfolio objectives are properly embedded in longer-term macroeconomic objectives. This is best supported by an integrated debt management unit, whether semi-autonomous or within the ministry of finance. Sound practice is to distinguish between separate front, middle, and back office functions, linking them with an operational risk management framework and proper internal controls.3 2 World Bank, 2019, “Debt in Low-Income Countries: Evolution, Implications, and Remedies,” in Global Economic Prospects: Darkening Skies, January, Washington, DC: World Bank. 3 M. Williams, 2013, “Debt and Cash Management,” in The International Handbook of Public Financial Management, edited by Richard Allen, Richard Hemming, and Barry H. Potter, Palgrave MacMillan. 9 • Legal Framework. A legal framework that covers decision-making, monitoring, reporting, and auditing must be firmly established. The legislation must clearly set out debt management objectives and hold officials accountable for the policies and operations to achieve them. Effective debt management systems would improve the monitoring of debt levels and fiscal risks, lead to more prudent debt strategies, and promote transparency. Sound public debt management would keep short-term and foreign currency exposures to prudent levels, ensure that countries borrow at lower costs, and ensure that the composition of public debt is less vulnerable to market disruptions. Greater transparency, supported by the regular publication of comprehensive and accurate debt statistics, and better governance would help mitigate the forces that lead to rapid debt accumulation. Better debt management and greater debt transparency will foster macroeconomic stability. Strengthen domestic revenue mobilization In addition to improving debt management, IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa can reduce their debt-related vulnerabilities by creating fiscal space through domestic revenue mobilization. Efforts to boost revenue would help stabilize high public debt and provide resources to pursue development objectives. In 2018, government revenue, as a share of GDP, averaged 17.9 percent in the region’s IDA countries. This was down from 18.4 percent in 2017, and well below the average of 27.7 percent of GDP for other IDA countries.4 Few IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa—including most notably Sierra Leone—made progress on revenue mobilization in 2018. The increase in revenue in Sierra Leone reflected tax policy reforms, including through the rationalization of exemptions, and improvements in revenue administration, including by introducing a biometric system and asset declaration forms. In several other countries—Ethiopia, Sudan, and Tanzania—revenue performance weakened in 2018 and declined as a share of GDP. The fall in revenue partly reflected a widespread use of exemptions and low tax compliance. Most countries could raise additional revenue, through reforms that improve the efficiency of the current tax systems. This would entail strengthening tax administration, broadening the tax base, and improving collection of non- commodity taxes. The estimated resources needed for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to achieve their 2030 Sustainable Development Goals are immense. Efforts to strengthen debt management capacity along with measures to boost domestic revenues and improve the quality of spending would be critical for meeting these objectives. This underscores the urgent need for the region’s IDA countries to strengthen the quality of their development policies and institutions. 4 The source for these figures is the IMF World Economic Outlook Database. 10 2018 CPIA Results The average CPIA score for the 38 IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.1 in 2018, unchanged from the past two years, suggesting weak momentum in improving the quality of the region’s policies and institutions. However, the average figure masks significant variation in the CPIA scores across countries (figure 11). Rwanda remained at the top Figure 11: Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2018 The average of the regional and global regional CPIA score remained rankings, with an overall Rwanda 4.0 Cabo Verde 3.8 unchanged at CPIA score of 4.0, unchanged 3.1 in 2018. Kenya 3.7 from 2017. Cabo Verde Senegal 3.7 moved to second place in Uganda 3.7 the regional ranking, with Burkina Faso 3.6 a score of 3.8, followed by Benin 3.5 Côte d'Ivoire 3.5 Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda, Ethiopia 3.5 all with a score of 3.7. This Ghana 3.5 ranking represented net Tanzania 3.5 gains for Cabo Verde and Mali 3.4 Uganda but a downgrade Mauritania 3.4 Niger 3.4 for Senegal, while Kenya’s Cameroon 3.3 position was unchanged. Lesotho 3.3 Burkina Faso maintained Madagascar 3.3 its 2017 score of 3.6, while Zambia 3.3 Guinea 3.2 Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Malawi 3.2 Ghana, and Tanzania each Mozambique 3.2 received a score of 3.5, with Sierra Leone 3.2 Ghana and Tanzania losing Togo 3.2 ground. Three countries— Nigeria 3.1 São Tomé and Príncipe 3.1 Mali, Mauritania, and Niger— SSA IDA average 3.1 had a score of 3.4, and four Gambia, The 3.0 countries—Cameroon, Burundi 2.9 Lesotho, Madagascar, and Congo, Dem. Rep. 2.9 Zambia—obtained a score of Liberia 2.9 Comoros 2.8 3.3. Slightly more than half of 2.8 Zimbabwe the countries (21 countries) Chad 2.7 scored 3.2 or less, including Congo, Rep. 2.7 Nigeria—the region’s largest Central African Republic 2.6 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 economy—with a score of 3.1. Sudan 2.3 The lowest score remained at Eritrea 2.0 1.5, reflecting South Sudan’s South Sudan 1.5 continued weak performance 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 across the CPIA criteria. Source: CPIA database. 11 The 2018 CPIA scores changed for about 40 percent of the countries, compared with 47 percent in the previous year. Eight countries, less than in 2017 (nine countries), saw an increase in their overall CPIA score. The number of countries with a decrease in the overall score fell to seven, from nine in 2017. However, unlike the previous year, the decreases in the aggregate scores were not led by fragile countries; rather, they were concentrated in the largest non-fragile countries, including Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, and Tanzania. The decline in Tanzania’s overall score—a 0.2-point drop compared with 2017—was notably large. Lesotho and Liberia also saw a decrease in their overall score with Liberia experiencing a 0.2-point decline. The decreases in the scores for Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal were relatively smaller. However, unlike Ghana and Senegal, Nigeria’s score has declined steadily since reaching a high of 3.6 in 2013. In some countries, the decrease in the overall score reflected a decline in the quality of economic management (Lesotho and Senegal); in others (Liberia and Tanzania), it was due to a deterioration in the quality of governance policies and institutions, most notably those affecting property rights and rule-based governance, the quality of public administration, and transparency and accountability in the public sector. In Nigeria, it was mainly due to weak performance in the health sector and deficiencies in the business regulatory environment. Encouragingly, among the eight countries that saw an increase in their overall score, five were fragile countries, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, and Togo (figure 12). The Democratic Republic of Congo notched an increase in its overall score, as economic imbalances eased amid a pickup in the pace of economic recovery. Of the eight Figure 12: CPIA Score and Change in Score, Selected Countries countries whose 0.2 CPIA scores Below SSA average Above SSA average increased, five are fragile ERI CAR ZAR TGO CIV CPV countries. 0.1 Change in overall CPIA score, 2017–18 ETH UGA Declines were concentrated Improving in the largest 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 0.0 non-fragile countries. Deteriorating SDN NGA LSO GHA SEN –0.1 LBR TZA –0.2 SSA average Falling behind Slipping –0.3 Overall CPIA score, 2018 Source: CPIA database. 12 However, despite these gains, the CPIA scores for most fragile countries remained well below the 3.2 threshold that separates fragile from non-fragile countries, reflecting the generally weak policies and institutions in the countries affected by fragility, conflict, and violence. The exceptions were Côte d’Ivoire and Togo, which saw their overall CPIA scores rise to 3.5 and 3.2, respectively. The non- fragile countries that increased their overall CPIA scores were Cabo Verde, Ethiopia, and Uganda. For 60 percent of the countries, the CPIA scores were unchanged in 2018. This was the case for high-ranking countries such as Kenya, Burkina Faso, and Benin. The CPIA scores of fragile countries such as Burundi, Chad, the Comoros, and Mali also remained unchanged. Although the overall regional CPIA score stayed flat, Figure 13: Trends in CPIA Clusters, 2010–18 Diverging trends diverging trends emerged 3.5 emerged among the CPIA clusters among the 3.4 (figure 13). After remaining CPIA clusters 3.3 3.3 in 2018. unchanged at 3.2 in 2016 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 and 2017, the score for the 3.2 3.2 CPIA score 3.2 economic management 3.1 cluster (cluster A) fell to 3.1 in 3.0 2018, as fiscal policy and debt 2.9 management weakened in 2.8 several countries. In contrast, 2.7 cluster C (policies for social 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 inclusion) trended higher, Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural policies with an overall score of 3.3, Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions up from 3.2 in 2017, reflecting Source: CPIA database. progress in gender equality, equity of public resource use, and building human resources in health and education. The structural policies cluster (cluster B) continued to display a relatively flat but weakening trend, with slow progress in trade policy and trade facilitation reforms, low financial sector development, and a decrease in the score for the business regulatory environment. The governance cluster (cluster D) continued to lag all other clusters, with its lower scores pointing to the challenges IDA countries across the region continue to face in improving the quality of governance policies and institutions, especially the legal framework for property rights, quality of the judicial system, and transparency and accountability in the public sector. The latest results also show that Sub-Saharan Africa’s regional CPIA score of 3.1 remained below the average score of 3.2 for other IDA countries (figure 14). The region’s IDA countries underperformed other IDA countries across almost all the clusters, especially the economic management cluster, which shows the largest gap in scores. The exception is the policies for social inclusion cluster, where the scores are similar. Comparison of cluster scores across country groups reveals that the 13 The region’s Figure 14: CPIA Scores, by CPIA Cluster IDA countries underperformed 3.5 other IDA 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 countries 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 across almost 3.0 all the clusters, especially in 2.5 CPIA score the area of economic management. 2.0 1.5 1.0 Cluster A: Cluster B: Cluster C: Cluster D: Public sector Overall CPIA score Economic management Structural policies Policies for social inclusion management and institutions SSA IDA Overall IDA excluding SSA Source: CPIA database. average cluster scores for non-fragile IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa were broadly similar to those of other non-fragile IDA countries (figure 15). However, compared with other fragile IDA countries, the average cluster scores for the region’s fragile IDA countries were lower, with weaker performance in the economic management, structural policies, and governance clusters. The region’s fragile IDA countries posted a higher average score on the policies for social inclusion cluster, reflecting stronger policies in the areas of building human resources, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. The region’s Figure 15: CPIA Scores, by Country Group and Cluster, 2018 fragile IDA countries 4.0 posted high 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 average CPIA 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 scores on the 3.3 3.3 policies for 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 social inclusion 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 cluster. 2.6 2.5 CPIA score 2.0 1.5 1.0 Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries excl. SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-Fragile excl. SSA countries Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural policies Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions Overall CPIA scores Source: CPIA database. 14 Analysis of the CPIA Components CLUSTER A: ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT Cluster A of the CPIA covers the quality of monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt policies. The average regional score for cluster A decreased from 3.2 in 2017 to 3.1 in 2018, its lowest over the past decade, continuing a weakening trend that started in 2014 amid the collapse in commodity prices. The score for debt policy and Figure A.1: Economic Management Cluster: Trend over Time Weaknesses management continued in countries’ to trend downward. After 3.7 fiscal and debt falling by 0.2 point to 3.1 policies have CPIA economic management score 3.5 pushed down in 2017, it softened further the regional in 2018, reflecting elevated 3.3 score for debt vulnerabilities across cluster A. 3.1 the region’s IDA countries. The score for fiscal policy was 2.9 low and decreasing, owing to 2.7 inconsistent fiscal policies in several countries. The score for 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 the monetary and exchange rate policy criterion has been Cluster A Monetary & exchange Fiscal policy Debt policy rate policies and management broadly stable on an improving Source: CPIA database. trend, with policies remaining relatively well calibrated (figure A.1). The decrease in the overall score for cluster A hides significant differences between fragile and non-fragile countries (figure A.2). The region’s non-fragile IDA countries recorded an average score of 3.5, higher than the overall cluster score. However, it was below the average score of 3.6 reached in 2017, as relatively strong scores on monetary and exchange rate policies and debt policy were partially offset by weaker fiscal policy management. The average score for the region’s fragile IDA countries remained low but steady at 2.7. Resilient countries—a group of 11 countries with annual GDP growth exceeding 5.4 percent during 2015–18—exhibited the strongest performance in economic management among all groups in the region. Their overall score of 3.7 was underpinned by strong monetary and exchange rate policies and debt policy and management. Reflecting the weakening in the quality of economic management, decreases in country scores largely outnumbered increases (figure A.3). Six countries recorded increases in their overall scores for cluster A. These included five fragile countries—the Central African Republic, Chad, the 15 The group Figure A.2: Economic Management Cluster Scores, by Country Group, 2018 of resilient countries 4.5 posted the strongest 4.0 3.9 performance 3.8 3.7 3.7 across all the 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 components 3.2 of cluster A. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.0 SSA IDA Fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Reslient countries Other countries Monetary and exchange rate policies Fiscal policy Debt policy Economic management cluster average Source: CPIA database. Democratic Republic of More countries Figure A.3: Changes in Cluster A: Economic Management experienced Congo, Mozambique, decreases than Congo, Dem. Rep. and Togo—with the increases in Togo Democratic Republic their score for cluster A. Niger of Congo registering Chad a 0.3-point increase. Mozambique However, nine countries, Central African Republic including three fragile São Tomé and Príncipe countries—Liberia, Sudan, Malawi and Zimbabwe—saw decreases in their scores. Zimbabwe The decreases were most Zambia pronounced Senegal in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Lesotho and Sudan, reflecting a Sudan weaker macroeconomic Sierra Leone policy environment. Liberia Country performances –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 under each component of Change in score cluster A are reviewed in Source: CPIA database. the following. 16 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies This criterion assesses the quality of monetary and exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework. The regional average score was unchanged, at 3.4. Four countries increased their scores for this criterion, while three countries saw their scores fall, partly reflecting differences in exchange rate arrangements. The Central African Republic and Chad were among the countries that increased their scores (table A.1). Both countries are members of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, which also includes Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. They share a common currency, the CFA franc, which is fixed to the euro. The increases in the scores for the Central African Republic and Chad reflected the shift in their policy stance to ensure that it was consistent with credible medium-term macroeconomic objectives, available financing, and debt sustainability. At the same time, regional institutions implemented corrective measures that were critical to address net foreign asset underperformance, including an increase in the regional central bank’s policy rate and the enforcement of banks’ foreign exchange regulations. Table A.1: Change in the Economic Management Cluster Score Change Monetary and Debt policy and Fiscal policy in scores exchange rate policies management Increases Congo, Dem. Rep., Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep., Togo Central African Republic, Mozambique, Niger Madagascar Decreases Sierra Leone, Sudan, Liberia, Senegal, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe Zambia, Malawi Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, Madagascar Source: CPIA database. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a favorable regulatory environment helped boost investment and exports in the mining sector. The level of foreign reserves increased, helping to stabilize the real effective exchange rate. Reflecting the increased currency stability, inflationary pressures eased, providing room for the central bank to cut interest rates to support the economic recovery. In Madagascar, foreign reserves rose strongly, covering more than four months of imports, with the central bank limiting volatility in the exchange rate through targeted interventions. In the countries that saw their scores fall, external balances deteriorated, exchange rates depreciated rapidly, and inflation rose sharply or remained elevated. In Sudan, for example, inflation rose to above 60 percent year-over-year (y/y) in 2018, up from 32 percent in 2017, partly reflecting the monetization of large fiscal deficits. The current account deficit widened, and reserves fell as the government tried to sustain a managed float. In Sierra Leone, inflation remained high, around 17 16-17 percent (y/y). The exchange rate continued to depreciate as a consequence of the large current account deficit. Zimbabwe faced deep macroeconomic imbalances amid heightened policy uncertainty. Inflation jumped to 10.6 percent (y/y) in 2018, from 0.9 percent (y/y) in 2017, partly reflecting the weakening of the parallel market foreign exchange rate and as central bank financing of the fiscal deficit continued. Fiscal Policy This criterion assesses the quality of fiscal policy in its stabilization and allocation functions. The regional average score for fiscal policy was unchanged, at 3.0. However, compared with 2017, fewer countries—the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, and Niger—registered an increase in their score for fiscal policy, while relatively more countries—Liberia, Malawi, Senegal, and Zambia— saw a decrease in their score, pointing to a weakening in the quality of fiscal policy. In the countries where the score for fiscal policy increased, fiscal balances improved, contributing to a slowdown in inflation and increased currency stability, and the composition of public expenditure shifted toward the provision of basic public services to the population, including public infrastructure. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the overall fiscal balance on a commitment basis shifted from deficit to a surplus, as tax and nontax revenue increased, offsetting the increase in spending, which allowed a cautious easing of monetary policy. In Mozambique, fiscal consolidation efforts had strengthened prior to the advent of Cyclone Idai. Subsidies on fuel and wheat prices were eliminated, and electricity and public transportation tariffs were adjusted. Together with robust revenue collection and a reduction in the stock of arrears, these efforts helped reduce the primary and overall deficits on a commitment basis. The exchange rate stabilized, and inflationary pressures eased. In Niger, budget implementation was bolstered by a strong revenue performance that reflected a systematic buildup of revenue administration capacity, although tailwinds from one-off revenues also contributed to the increase in revenue. The fiscal deficit and domestic financing declined, strengthening macroeconomic stability. In addition, the government made efforts to protect social spending in health and education and scale up resources for rural development. By contrast, in the countries that saw their scores fall, fiscal policy remained destabilizing. In Liberia, for example, the overall fiscal deficit rose significantly, from 4.8 percent of GDP in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to 5.5 percent in FY 2018, largely due to the decline both in domestic revenues and in grants. The fiscal deficit was financed by external loans, borrowing from the central bank, and a buildup of domestic arrears. Lack of adjustment on the expenditure side resulted in the depletion of fiscal buffers by end-2018. Inflation surged, and domestic debt increased. In Senegal, the maintenance of fixed domestic energy prices despite elevated global prices for most of 2018, together with a significant increase in wages and poor revenue performance, resulted in significant pressure on public finances and delays in the clearance of domestic arrears. In Zambia, a rapid scaling up of infrastructure spending resulted in a large fiscal deficit on a commitment basis in 2018. The significant buildup of domestic arrears weighed on households and businesses and took a toll on economic growth. 18 Debt Policy and Management This criterion assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensuring medium-term debt sustainability and minimizing budgetary risks. The regional average score for debt policy and management was unchanged, at 3.1. However, only one country—Togo— increased its score for this criterion, while five countries—Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Sierra Leone—saw their scores fall, reflecting the increase in debt vulnerability in the region’s IDA countries (figure A.4). In Togo, fiscal consolidation led Figure A.4: Countries with Changes in the Debt Policy and For about 13 to improving debt ratios. For 5.0 Management Score, 2017 and 2018 percent of the end-2018, public sector debt IDA countries is estimated at 74.1 percent of 4.5 in the region, the score for GDP, down from 75.6 percent 4.0 debt policy and of GDP, while domestic debt management is forecast to decrease to 50.2 3.5 decreased. percent of GDP, more than 3.0 5 percentage points lower than at end-2017. The decline 2.5 in domestic debt reflected 2.0 commitments made by the government to return to debt 1.5 sustainability, including by 1.0 reducing short-maturity and Togo São Tomé and Príncipe Liberia Sierra Leone Lesotho Madagascar expensive domestic debt CPIA score 2017 CPIA score 2018 SSA IDA average for debt policy and management and increasing concessional Source: CPIA database. borrowing. This new policy orientation was reflected in the Medium-Term Debt Strategy. In addition, an arrears clearance plan was prepared, and the government issued guidelines to prevent the accumulation of new domestic arrears. Among the countries that saw their score for debt policy and management fall, São Tomé and Príncipe was classified as being in debt distress, which is a change from the 2017 Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) in which the country was classified as having a high risk of external debt distress. This change reflected that, under the baseline scenario, the present value of debt to exports and the present value of debt to revenue breached their indicative thresholds. Under stress tests with the most extreme shock, all external debt stock indicators breach their respective thresholds early in the projection period. Meanwhile, Sierra Leone was classified as having a high risk of debt distress for external public debt and overall public debt, a deterioration of the moderate risk rating in the 2017 DSA. This was because, under the baseline scenario, the debt service-to- revenue ratio breached the threshold. 19 Lesotho’s risk of debt distress was revised to moderate from low in the 2017 DSA. This change reflected larger fiscal deficits and contingent liabilities. Stress tests indicate that external debt vulnerabilities could emerge in the event of a large contingent liabilities shock. In Liberia and Madagascar, the present value of public external debt and domestic debt remained consistent with moderate risk of debt distress under the baseline scenario, as in the 2017 DSA. However, in the case of Madagascar, the 2018 DSA revealed less favorable financing conditions, with higher average interest rates on new disbursements and reduced grace periods. For Liberia, the fall in the score mainly reflected weaknesses in the effectiveness of debt management functions. In particular, debt reporting and monitoring deteriorated. In sum, the decrease in the regional score for cluster A highlights the need for policymakers to reinforce their fiscal frameworks to make them more conducive to effective countercyclical policies and improve the management of public debt and contingent liabilities, including strengthening capacity for debt recording, monitoring, and reporting. These measures have become more urgent in IDA countries that face rising non-concessional debt repayments. Greater central bank transparency and a credible commitment to anchor inflation expectations can help insulate the region’s IDA countries from external shocks. 20 CLUSTER B: STRUCTURAL POLICIES Cluster B of the CPIA covers policies affecting trade, the financial sector, and the business environment. The regional average score for cluster B held steady at 3.2 in 2018, but this average score hides considerable variation across the cluster. Trade continued to register the highest scores, but the average score has remained flat over the past two years, reflecting a slow pace of reforms in trade policies and trade facilitation, which the African Continental Free Trade Area aims to reinvigorate.1 A consistent empirical finding is that trade reforms that significantly reduce import tariffs have a positive impact on economic growth, on average, although the effect is heterogenous across countries.2 The average score for the business regulatory Figure B.1: Structural Policies Cluster: Trend over Time The regional environment trended lower average score in 2018, suggesting that the 3.8 for cluster B regulatory environment was less 3.6 held steady at 3.2 in 2018, conducive to the private sector 3.4 but there is development that is needed 3.2 considerable variation to boost growth and create 3.0 CPIA score across the jobs. As in the previous year, 2.8 cluster. performance was weakest in the 2.6 financial sector, with an average 2.4 score that remained well below 2.2 the cluster average score 2.0 (figure B.1). 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cluster B Trade Significant differences persisted Financial sector Business regulatory environment between fragile and non-fragile Sources: CPIA database. countries. The average cluster score for the region’s non-fragile IDA countries fell from 3.5 in 2017 to 3.4 in 2018, due to a decrease in their score for the business regulatory environment. Meanwhile, the average cluster score for the region’s fragile IDA countries was unchanged at 2.8. While their score for trade increased, the average score for the financial sector criterion remained unchanged at a low level. Trade This criterion assesses a country’s trade policy regime and trade facilitation. The regional average score for this criterion was 3.7, the same as in 2017. As in previous years, there were almost no changes in the trade scores. Only Eritrea—a fragile country—saw its score change, with a 0.5 point increase to 2.0, on account of the opening of an unrestricted border with Ethiopia. Cabo Verde, Rwanda, Senegal, and Uganda remained the top performers, each with a score of 4.5, reflecting moderate barriers, relative transparency in the trade regime, and stronger trading across borders indicators. 1 International Monetary Fund, 2019, “Is the African Continental Free Trade Area a Game Changer for the Continent?” Regional Economic Outlook Sub- Saharan Africa, IMF, Washington, DC. 2 D. Irwin, 2019, “Does Trade Reform promote Economic Growth? A Review of Recent Evidence,” PIIE Working Paper 19-9, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC. 21 Trade can be a powerful tool for poverty reduction. Since 1990, more than one billion people have moved out of poverty, primarily in East Asia, due to economic growth underpinned by open trade. Farmers and manufacturing workers see better returns and higher wages when their products can reach overseas markets. The average applied customs tariff for the region’s IDA countries is 12.3 percent (figure B.2), and for 28 of the 34 countries for which data are available, the average tariff exceeds 10 percent. This compares with a global average applied tariff of 4.6 percent and 3.9 percent in East Asia. In China, the average tariff is 8.1 percent. For some IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Cameroon and Ethiopia, average tariffs are more than double those in China and almost three times higher than in Vietnam. Between 2005 and 2017, the average global tariff fell by over 40 percent, while for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa the average tariff fell by only 17 percent. The average tariff applied by Vietnam, a country that has successfully leveraged trade integration to drive growth, fell by almost half, from 11.8 percent in 2005 to 6.5 percent in 2017. The average Figure B.2: Average Applied Customs Tariff (%) applied customs tariff is higher 20 in IDA countries 18 in Sub-Saharan 16 Africa than in 14 other countries. Customs tariff (%) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 East Asia Paci c All countries SSA IDA average Lao PDR Vietnam China Zambia Kenya Ethiopia Cameroon Note: Data for most recent year available. Source: UNCTAD. This tariff gap remains substantial on intermediate inputs used in the production of other goods. For IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the average applied tariff on intermediates is 9.7 percent, and 18 countries levy tariffs on intermediates that exceed 10 percent on average. This compares with a global average tariff of 3.5 percent on intermediates and 3.8 percent in Vietnam. Maintaining high tariffs on industrial inputs could hamper the industrialization process that IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are seeking to achieve. High tariffs on intermediates constrain the development of regional value chains across key industrial and agricultural sectors and constrain African firms from integrating into global value chains. One of the reasons for the slow progress in reducing tariffs in Sub-Saharan Africa toward the levels being applied elsewhere and, in particular, to rates applied by growing developing countries in East Asia may be concerns about loss of revenue. Figure B.3 shows the share of revenues from taxes on trade for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. 22 Figure B.3: Taxes on International Trade (Imports and Exports) as a Percentage of Government Revenue For a large number of 70 the region’s IDA countries, 60 revenues from 50 trade taxes represent 40 less than 10 percent of total 30 government 20 revenues. 10 0 Eswatini Mauritania Equatorial Guinea Angola Morocco Algeria South Africa Ghana Egypt, Arab Rep. Zambia Burundi Seychelles Rwanda Malawi Mozambique Tunisia Kenya Tanzania Sierra Leone Mali Senegal Uganda Burkina Faso Madagascar Congo, Dem. Rep. Cabo Verde Togo Zimbabwe Botswana São Tomé and Principe Benin Central African Republic Côte d'Ivoire Namibia Liberia Lesotho Congo, Rep. Source: IMF (2018). For most IDA countries in the region, including Burundi, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda, and Zambia, revenues from trade taxes contribute less than 10 percent of total government revenues. For other countries, such as Benin, the Central African Republic, and Côte d’Ivoire, trade taxes generate between 20 and 30 percent of government revenues; for Lesotho, trade taxes generate around 40 percent of government revenues. However, the customs tariff, the distortionary tax applied to trade, usually contributes a smaller share of overall trade taxes. For example, for Rwanda, the customs tariff provides less than 30 percent of revenues from imports; for the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is 40 percent; and for Cameroon, it is 45 percent.3 The issue of revenue losses from tariff reform has arisen in discussions surrounding the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). An analysis of the revenue implications of an AfCFTA scenario suggests that revenue losses will be limited, with an impact of less than 1 percent on total tax revenues for most countries.4 Even under a full liberalization scenario under which all tariffs on African countries are removed, total tax revenue losses are below 3 percent for most countries, except Malawi and Mali, where the total revenue losses are 6.8 and 6 percent, respectively. It would be relevant for countries to review their overall tariff policies and assess the opportunities for reducing overall tariff rates, to complement the implementation of the AfCFTA and realign trade policies with those of successful developing countries elsewhere in the world. Trade facilitation relates to the predictability and transparency of border clearance procedures, the efficiency of border agencies, and the restrictiveness of regulations affecting the logistics sector. As with trade policies, there has been very little improvement in the trade facilitation scores. No country registered an improvement in trade facilitation between 2017 and 2018. A key input to 3 G. Arenas and Y. Vnukova, 2019, “Short-Term Revenue Implications of Tariff Liberalization under the African Continental Free Trade Area,” World Bank, Washington, DC. 4 Countries agreed to remove tariffs on 90 percent of the tariff lines within five years. In year six, an additional 7 percent of the tariff lines, considered “sensitive,” are expected to be liberalized over 10 years. The remaining 3 percent of the tariff lines will continue to be excluded from liberalization. 23 the CPIA assessment is performance on the Doing Business measure of trading across borders, for which the average overall rank for the region’s IDA countries is 143, although there is substantial variation, from Lesotho with a rank of 38, to the Democratic Republic of Congo with the lowest rank of 188. The cost to import and export remains substantially higher in Sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions. For example, the cost of satisfying the documentary requirements to export is almost 50 percent higher in Malawi than in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Although many countries are making strong efforts to improve trade facilitation, much remains to be done to reach the levels of efficiency that have been achieved in fast-growing developing countries. The high costs and uncertainty surrounding border procedures and the poor quality of logistics services in many IDA countries in the region undermine the development of regional and global value chains and the attractiveness of African countries for trade-related investment. Experience from World Bank projects suggests the need for careful coordination of interventions to build (i) appropriate infrastructure that improves conditions at borders and ports and increases capacities to trade, (ii) measures to simplify border crossing procedures and improve the standards of treatment of traders and officials, and (iii) support for programs to improve the performance of agencies operating at the border. While the majority of funding goes for hard infrastructure to facilitate trade, to be effective and maximize socioeconomic returns, these investments must be backed by procedural reforms and institutional changes. Financial Sector The financial sector criterion assesses the policies and regulations that affect financial stability; efficiency, depth, and resource mobilization strength; and access to financial services. The regional average score for the financial sector was unchanged for the second year in a row, at 2.8, with only one country—Tanzania—registering a decline in its average score, due to deteriorating asset quality in the banking sector and lower access to formal financial services. At the subcomponent level, there were six changes on financial stability, with four decreases in scores and two increases. For the other two subcomponents, there were very few changes. Fragile IDA countries in Sub- Saharan Africa continue to register low financial sector scores (figure B.4). For the financial stability subcomponent, there was a deterioration in performance compared with 2017. Some countries took decisive action to address capital deficient banks, including through resolution and consolidation. In contrast, other countries continued to exercise forbearance, leaving financial sector fragility unaddressed. In a couple of cases, capital deficient banks were state-owned financial entities of sovereigns that are themselves financially stretched. For the asset quality subcomponent, the picture was mixed. Some countries registered higher nonperforming loans, reflecting the delayed impact of adverse commodity price shocks on the financial sector, while others saw improvements that were driven by more supportive macro- financial environments and write-offs of bad loans. In some countries, prudential standards were being upgraded, including through higher minimum bank capital; in others, legislation granting stronger resolution powers and tools was enacted. However, important gaps vis-à-vis international standards remained. Banking sector exposure to the sovereign (including state-owned enterprises) is growing in several countries, reflecting the diminished appetite for private sector credit risk, relatively high yields, and favorable prudential treatment. 24 For the efficiency, depth, Figure B.4: Financial Sector CPIA Scores, by Fragility Fragile IDA and resource mobilization countries in subcomponent, the score of 3.5 Sub-Saharan only one country fell, while the Africa continue 3.0 3.0 to register low scores for the other countries 3.0 financial sector were unchanged. Financial 2.7 scores. 2.5 sector depth, measured by 2.5 the median ratio of private 2.0 sector credit to GDP, remained stagnant at around 19 percent, 1.5 with the ratio for the median IDA country at just over 15 1.0 percent. Fragile countries Fragile countries Non-fragile Non-fragile in SSA excluding SSA countries in SSA excluding SSA countries Underscoring the relatively Source: CPIA database. small scale of the banking systems in the region and high operating costs, among other factors, the median IDA country in Sub-Saharan Africa continued to show the highest lending-deposit spread compared with other regions, with no improvement in performance for the 25th and 75th percentiles over 2008–17 (figure B.5). Large numbers of microfinance institutions continued to operate under very loose supervisory oversight in some countries. In one country, the projected cost to the government for the restructuring and exit of failed microfinance institutions was roughly of the same order of magnitude as the cost of restructuring the banking system. For the access to financial Figure B.5: Lending-Deposit Spread, by Region, 2003–17 Lending-deposit services subcomponent, two interest rate countries saw a decrease in 14 spreads are their scores, reflecting the 12 higher in Sub- Saharan Africa retrenchment in private sector compared with 10 lending. On the positive side, other regions. Percentage in some countries, sizable 8 gains (a doubling or more) 6 in the share of the adult 4 population with access to a transactional account at a 2 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 2003–07 2008–12 2013–17 formal financial institution were registered in relatively EAP ECA LAC MENA SA AFR short periods of time. These Source: Finstats 2019. gains reflected the continued Note: Median values are in black lines. The 75th and 25th percentiles are the box top and bottom. EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; expansion of mobile money MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SA = South Asia; AFR = Africa. offerings throughout the region, underpinned by an approach to prudential regulation that balances safety and soundness with support for financial inclusion. However, in many countries, the enabling legal, supervisory, and consumer protection 25 environment for that mode of delivery of financial services shows significant shortcomings (for example, protection of client funds) that, in the event of operator failure, could undermine the clients’ trust. In addition, the gains tend be concentrated in urban areas with much higher population density. Business Regulatory Environment The business regulatory environment criterion measures the legal, regulatory, and policy environment for private businesses. Its three subcomponents assess regulations affecting (i) entry, exit, and competition; (ii) ongoing business operations; and (iii) labor and land markets. The average regional score for the business regulatory environment was 3.0 in 2018, down from 3.1 in 2017. As in the past, country scores differed significantly within the region. Rwanda, the top performing country, had a score of 4.5, followed by Zambia with a score of 4.0. On the other end of the spectrum, Eritrea had a score of 1.0. Businesses in the region’s fragile countries continue to operate in regulatory environments that are worse than in their non-fragile counterparts, as shown in figures B.6A and B.6B. Resource-rich countries tend to have somewhat lower scores than other economies. Two countries—Côte d’Ivoire The scores for Figure B.6A:CPIA Scores in Fragile and Resource-Rich Countries and Togo—increased their the business scores by 0.5 point in 2018. regulatory environment are 3.3 3.3 Five countries—The Gambia, lower for fragile 3.2 Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, countries and resource-rich 3.1 Senegal—recorded a decrease 3 3 countries. 3.0 in their score. Côte d’Ivoire 2.9 2.9 and Togo implemented six 2.8 reforms and were recognized 2.7 2.7 among the top 10 Doing 2.6 Business reformers. Most of the 2.5 reforms implemented by these 2.4 SSA IDA average Fragile countries Non-fragile countries Resource-rich Resource-poor countries were in the areas of regulating ongoing business Ease of Doing Figure B.6B: Ease of Doing Business Scores in Fragile and Resource-Rich Countries operations. Many other IDA Business scores countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are also lower 56 in fragile and 53.9 introduced regulatory changes resource-rich 54 to improve aspects of their countries. 52 51.2 business environment. 50.1 50 Doing Business 2019 captured 48 47.2 107 reforms implemented 46 45.1 by countries in Sub-Saharan 44 Africa—a record number 42 for the third consecutive year. Furthermore, the 40 SSA IDA average Fragile countries Non-fragile countries Resource-rich Resource-poor largest number of countries Sources: CPIA database; Doing Business 2019. implemented reforms over the 26 past year, with 40 of the region’s 48 countries introducing at least one reform, compared with the previous high of 37 countries two years ago. The largest number of reforms implemented in the region was in the area of enforcing contracts. This was largely due to the adoption of the Uniform Act on Mediation, by the Organization for Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, which includes 17 members. Much of the reform activity was also focused on reducing the time and cost to start a business, with 17 reforms recorded in this area, and to register property, where 13 reforms have been implemented. Furthermore, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa implemented eight reforms in the area of getting electricity—the highest number of any region worldwide. Box B.1 provides more information about the top reformers. Four Sub-Saharan African International Development Association (IDA) countries—Togo, Côte Box B.1: Who Are d’Ivoire, Kenya, and Rwanda—made the list of the global top 10 improvers this year. The first three the Top countries also had an above-average (for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa) score of 3.5 for Performers business regulatory environment, and Rwanda’s score of 4.5 was the highest in the region. Over the in Doing Business? past 12 months, collectively, these countries implemented a total of 23 reforms. Rwanda led the region in the number of reforms implemented—seven in the past year. Rwanda ranks 29 on the Ease of Doing Business globally, ahead of Spain, which ranks 30. Rwanda is among the best in the world on the Doing Business areas of registering property (with a rank of 2) and getting credit (with a rank of 3). In registering property, Rwanda has an efficient land registry where it takes seven days to transfer property and costs only 0.1 percent of the property value, the same as in New Zealand. The second- best ranking IDA country in Sub-Saharan Africa is Kenya, which implemented five reforms over the past year and ranks 61 globally on the Ease of Doing Business. One reform included the introduction of a new law that helped further strengthen access to credit. This reform propelled Kenya to rank eighth in the world on the ease of getting credit. Sources: Doing Business 2019; Doing Business 2019 Fact Sheet: Sub-Saharan Africa. Over time there has been a significant reform effort to improve the business environment in the region. For example, today it takes on average 21 days and costs 39 percent of income per capita to register a business in Sub-Saharan Africa, compared with 62 days and 303 percent of income per capita in 2003. It takes on average 55 days and costs 8 percent of the property value to register property in the region today, compared with 112 days and 13 percent of the property value in 2005 when this Doing Business indicator was introduced. Despite these achievements, firms in Sub-Saharan Africa face a more challenging business environment compared with other locations, largely because countries in the region are reforming at a slower pace. In the countries where the score fell, reforms were notably weak in some areas. In The Gambia, for example, the cost of starting a business was recorded at 121 percent of gross national income per capita, compared with 44.4 percent for Sub-Saharan Africa and 3.1 percent for OECD countries. In Liberia, firms faced high costs and burdensome procedures in dealing with construction permits and trading across borders. Regulations on ownership and financial disclosure stayed weak. Similarly, in Nigeria, there were few reforms to strengthen the regulations of ongoing business operations, and firms faced substantial burdens in dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, and paying taxes. In Senegal, rigid labor regulations constrained formal employment. 27 Overall, while there is a substantial, gradual convergence in the area of starting a business, gaps between Sub-Saharan Africa and OECD high-income countries remain notably large on the cost of obtaining an electricity connection (figure B.7). Gaps between Figure B.7: Areas Where Economies Are Coverging and Areas Where They Are Not Sub-Saharan Africa and Average time to start a business Average cost to obtain an electricity connection OECD high- 70 7,000 income countries Cost as percent of Per Capita Income remain large 60 6,000 in electricity 50 5,000 connection, while there is 40 4,000 Days a convergence in the area 30 3,000 of starting a business. 20 2,000 10 1,000 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sub-Saharan Africa OECD countries Sub-Saharan Africa OECD countries Source: Doing Business 2019. The average Ease of Doing Business score for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was 50.1. However, this average figure masks significant variability in the scores (figure B.8). For example, Rwanda’s score was three times higher than that of Eritrea; it was also significantly higher than the scores of neighboring countries, including Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similarly, Zambia is significantly ahead of its neighbor Zimbabwe. This suggests that there is considerable scope for peer learning, and countries can improve their regulatory environments by adopting good practices that are already prevalent in the region. There is Figure B.8: Ease of Doing Business Scores among Economies in Sub-Saharan Africa. significant variation in Ease of Doing Business score (0–100) Ease of Doing 80 Business scores 70 among IDA 60 countries in 50 Sub-Saharan 40 Africa. 30 20 10 0 Rwanda Kenya Zambia Lesotho Malawi Ghana Côte d'Ivoire Uganda Cabo Verde Mozambique Senegal Niger Tanzania Nigeria Mauritania Gambia, The Burkina Faso Guinea Benin Zimbabwe SSA IDA average Ethiopia Madagascar Sudan Sierra Leone Comoros Cameroon Burundi São Tomé and Príncipe Liberia Guinea-Bissau Congo, Rep. Central African Republic Congo, Dem. Rep. South Sudan Eritrea Togo Mali Chad Source: Doing Business 2019. 28 CLUSTER C: POLICIES FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION AND EQUITY Cluster C of the CPIA covers gender equality, equity of public resource use, human development, social protection, and environmental sustainability. The regional average score for cluster C increased to 3.3 in 2018 after sliding to 3.2 in 2017. The increase reflected strengthening of the policies affecting gender equality, equity of public resource use, and building human resources. All the country groups, including fragile countries, achieved their highest score on the building human resources criterion, which covers health and education, pointing to an increased focus on developing capabilities in human capital. The average score for environmental sustainability continued to hold steady across fragile and non-fragile countries. By contrast, the average score for social protection and labor decreased in 2018. It was the lowest average score among the cluster components, highlighting the need for effective social safety nets for poor and vulnerable populations especially in the region’s fragile countries (figure C.1). Figure C.1: Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity The increase in the average 3.6 score for cluster 3.5 C reflected gains in the 3.4 building human 3.3 resources, 3.2 equity of public resource CPIA score 3.1 use, and 3.0 gender equity 2.9 components. 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cluster C Gender equality Equity of public resource use Building human resources Social protection & labor Policies and institutions for environment sustainability Sources: CPIA database. Gender Equality The gender equality criterion assesses the extent to which a country has enacted and put in place laws, policies, mechanisms, institutions, and programs that promote equal access for men and women to human capital development and productive and economic resources, and which give men and women equal status and protection under the law. The regional average score for this category was 3.2, unchanged since 2014. This stagnation reflects not only the large gender gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also the difficulty of changing the social norms that underlie many of these gaps. However, in 2018, three countries—the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, and Ethiopia—registered increases in their scores, while one country— South Sudan—saw a decrease in its score. 29 Between 2010 and 2015, the Democratic Republic of Congo increased its gender parity ratio for primary school enrollment from 87 to 99 percent. This progress was likely supported by the gradual enforcement of the 2010 fee-free primary education policy. Evidence from across the region indicates that household financial constraints are more likely to constrain girls’ than boys’ education, with poor households prioritizing boys for investment of limited household resources. Over the past decade, Eritrea has made impressive progress in reducing female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM-C). The prevalence rates among girls younger than age 15 years fell from 33 percent in 2010 to just under 4 percent between 2016 and 2018, according to the FGM-C Mapping Study. This progress has been achieved by massive mobilization and strong enforcement. During 2013–17, a total of 250 cases related to practicing FGM-C were presented to courts, with 163 cases decided and 67 pending. A total of 548 anti-FGM-C committees nationwide are functioning at all levels. In Ethiopia, the new administration made significant strides in increasing women’s participation at the highest levels, with the share of women in the cabinet rising from around 14 to 50 percent. This improvement builds on the region’s already strong performance on women’s representation in politics. At 24 percent, Sub-Saharan Africa has the second highest average representation of women in parliament of any region, ahead of the Middle East and North Africa (17 percent), South Asia (18 percent), East Asia and the Pacific (21 percent), and Europe and Central Asia (21 percent). A key constraint that is impeding the region from making further progress on some aspects of gender equality is a high degree of fragility. Conflict and fragility impact men and women differently. Men are more likely to be killed in direct conflict and, after the conflict has ended, are vulnerable to being recruited into illicit activities. By contrast, women are more likely to be exposed to gender-based violence, which can be normalized by conflict and is sometimes used as a weapon of war. Moreover, fragile settings tend to have weaker institutions, such as law enforcement and judicial institutions, impeding their ability to respond effectively to cases of violence and deter future cases. Conflict also reduces women’s access to basic services, such as those related to reproductive and maternal health and education. For example, evidence from around the world suggests that the risks of various forms of violence, including gender-based violence and terrorism, have a greater negative impact on girls’ than on boys’ school attendance. The impact of fragility is reflected in the country CPIA scores for gender equality, with fragile countries in the region achieving a median score of 2.9 compared with 3.4 for non-fragile countries. In South Sudan, a fragile country where gender-based violence remained pervasive, the country score decreased to 1.5 from 2.0 in 2017. An issue that is prominent across the region, especially in countries in fragile situations, is the small size of the formal wage labor market, with women facing relatively greater constraints than men in accessing wage job opportunities. One approach to addressing this issue is to focus on developing women’s role in entrepreneurship. A recent report from the World Bank’s Africa Gender Innovation Lab and the Finance Competitiveness & Innovation Global Practice (World Bank 2019) sheds light on this issue (box C.1). 30 While women in Sub-Saharan Africa are more likely to work than women in any other region and are Box C.1: Entrepreneurship more likely than their male counterparts to be entrepreneurs, the reasons behind these statistics are and Women’s not entirely positive. Women are more likely than men to be pushed into entrepreneurship because Empowerment they lack better opportunities, rather than starting businesses because they necessarily have the right skills or a burning passion to become entrepreneurs. This may partly be explained by their lower levels of formal education, discrimination in hiring practices in the wage job market, and women’s disproportionate responsibility for home-based work, including childcare, which may mean that small-scale, home-based businesses are one of the few ways they can generate an income. Given this situation, it is not surprising that women entrepreneurs’ revenues are 38 percent lower and their profits 34 percent lower than those of their male counterparts. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, there is lower capital investment by businesswomen compared with businessmen. In South Africa, women’s capital investments in their businesses are 56 percent lower than men’s; they are 61 percent lower in Togo and 72 percent lower in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The capital investment gap reflects women’s unequal position in household bargaining, and their lower ownership of assets, such as land, and the lower formalization rates of their businesses, both of which impede their ability to secure business loans. Promising approaches to increasing women’s capital investments include efforts to connect women to commercial banks and using fintec to get around the need for collateral for business loans. On the first approach, in Malawi, the Africa Gender Innovation Lab tested business registration support and the provision of information sessions at a bank, with the offer of a business bank account (Campos et al. 2018). On its own, business registration did not result in improved business performance, yet adding the bank information sessions led to a 20 percent increase in firm profits. This shows that even small design tweaks to existing interventions can have large impacts. And at a one-time cost of $27 per firm registered, this is an effective and replicable design. To test the second approach, the use of fintec to get around the need for collateral for business loans, a World Bank project in Ethiopia paired a U.S. fintech company with Ethiopia’s largest micro finance institution (Alibhai et al. 2018). The fintec company has developed a psychometric test that can predict the likelihood an entrepreneur will be able to repay a loan, reducing or eliminating the need for traditional collateral. Customers who scored at a high threshold on the psychometric test were seven times more likely to repay their loans compared with lower-performing customers. This technology has been used to deliver more than one million loans to entrepreneurs in more than 25 countries. In summary, although women entrepreneurs face many of the same constraints faced by men, to maximize the impact on women’s business performance and help more of them grow beyond the subsistence level, it is vital that solutions are tailored to their specific needs. The Profiting from Parity report shows that innovative and cost-effective interventions already exist. References Alibhai, Aly Salman, Niklas Buehren, Rachel Dawn Coleman, Markus P. Goldstein, and Francesco Strobbe. 2018. Disruptive Finance: Using Psychometrics to Overcome Collateral Constraints in Ethiopia. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Campos, Francisco, Markus Goldstein, and David McKenzie. 2018. “How Should the Government Bring Small Firms into the Formal System? Experimental Evidence from Malawi.” Policy Research Working Paper 8601, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank Group. 2019. Profiting from Parity: Unlocking the Potential of Women’s Businesses in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. 31 Equity of Public Resource Use This criterion assesses the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. It has three subcomponents. The first assesses the extent to which poverty measurement tools are available, mechanisms are in place to track expenditure, and information on poverty is available to the public. The second assesses how well poor and vulnerable groups are identified and whether government priorities and strategies are effectively directed toward these groups. The third covers the incidence of various tax policies. The regional average score for this criterion was unchanged, at 3.3 in 2018. However, four countries—Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Zimbabwe—saw their scores change, all of which increased by 0.5 point. Chad’s score increased to 3.0, mainly reflecting the completion of a new consumption-based household survey. Supporting this effort, several statistical reforms were enacted, including a new statistics law. This places the country’s score alongside the likes of Cameroon, the Republic of Congo, and Madagascar. Côte d’Ivoire’s score increased to 3.5 because of the regular tracking of household welfare and the ease with which many data sets can be accessed by the public on the national statistical institution’s website. Countries with the same score include Benin, Nigeria, and Zambia. Guinea also saw an increase to 3.5, which was More than 60 Figure C.2: Distribution of CPIA Scores for Equity of Public Resource Use based on the government’s percent of IDA countries in the 14 13 credible commitment to align region have a 12 social spending toward policies score of 3.5 or higher. aimed at addressing the most 10 vulnerable groups in society 9 9 No. of countries 8 through social programs. Finally, the score for Zimbabwe 6 rose to 3.5 because of policy 4 4 3 advances ensuring that the dissemination of microdata 2 1 and indicators based on 0 results-based budgeting are 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 strengthened (figure C.2). CPIA score for equity of public resource use The differences in scores by Source: CPIA database. fragility status are shown in figure C.3. The average score for fragile IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was unchanged at 2.9 in 2018, compared with an average score of 3.6 for the region’s non-fragile countries. The best-scoring fragile IDA countries in the region have scores of 3, which are comparable to those of the middle range of the region’s non-fragile countries. The lowest-scoring fragile countries have scores of 2, a full point below the lowest scores for non-fragile countries, underscoring the need for policies that would support a more equitable use of public resources in fragile countries. Data and statistical capabilities help generate social awareness and motivate policies. The first subcomponent of the equity and public resource use criterion covers the extent to which poverty measurement data are available and accessible to the public. This is closely related 32 Figure C.3: Equity and Public Resource Use CPIA Scores, by Country and Fragility Status Although the average score 5 for fragile countries is 4 lower than that for non-fragile 3 countries, the scores of some 2 fragile countries are comparable 1 to those of non-fragile 0 countries. Burundi Congo, Dem. Rep. Côte d'Ivoire Liberia Mali Togo Zimbabwe Chad Congo, Rep. Gambia, The Mozambique Comoros Eritrea Sudan Central African Republic Guinea-Bissau South Sudan Rwanda Burkina Faso Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Mauritania Niger Senegal Tanzania Uganda Benin Cabo Verde Guinea Nigeria Sierra Leone Zambia Cameroon Ghana Lesotho Madagascar São Tomé and Príncipe Fragile countries Non-fragile countries Source: CPIA database. to a country’s statistical Figure C.4: Correlation between Statistical Capacity and Equity Statistical capacity, which measures and Public Resource Use Scores capacity is its ability to collect, analyze, positively 5 correlated with and disseminate high-quality the poverty economic and population measurement 4 data. The positive correlation R = 0.47 subcomponent. Score for component 8a between this subcomponent 3 and the overall statistical capacity score held up in 2 2018, as shown in figure C.4. This suggests that, on 1 average, a higher statistical capacity score for a country 0 is associated with a higher 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 score for this subcomponent. Statistical capacity score 2018 Fragile countries in general Source: CPIA database. Fragile Non-fragile have lower scores than their statistical capacity might suggest, as shown by those that are below the fitted line in figure C.4, underscoring the need for building state capacity along with the renewal of the social contract as pathways out of fragility.5 Building Human Resources The building human resources component assesses the quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education. The regional average score for this criterion was unchanged, at 3.6 in 2018, similar to that of other IDA countries. Eleven countries saw their scores change in 2018: six registered an increase, while five countries experienced a decrease. 5 World Bank, 2019, Africa’s Pulse, Volume 19, April 2019, An Analysis of Issues Shaping Africa’s Future, Washington, DC: World Bank. 33 Health The regional average score for health was 3.4, the same as in 2017. Five countries—the Central African Republic, Chad, The Gambia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—saw their scores increase, and five countries—the Comoros, Guinea, Mauritania, Nigeria, and South Sudan—experienced a decrease in their scores. Most countries’ scores are in the mid-range, at 3.0 or 3.5, as shown in figure C.5. The countries that are trailing the regional average include the Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, South Sudan, and Nigeria. Health scores Figure C.5: CPIA Ratings for Health, by Country for most countries are in 5.0 the mid-range. 4.5 4.0 CPIA health score 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2018 CPIA scores for health SSA IDA average score for health Source: CPIA database. There have been notable gains at both ends of the distribution since 2017. Ten countries had a score of 4.0 or higher, accounting for 26.3 percent of the region’s IDA countries (table C.1). This was a positive development compared with 2017, when only 21 percent of the IDA countries scored in that range. Outstanding in this range is Rwanda. It sustained the significant progress it made in service coverage, stewardship, and health financing. At the low end of the distribution, the share of countries that scored 2.5 or below was 10.5 percent, which was a notable reduction from the 15.8 percent in that bracket in 2017. Finally, about 63 percent of the region’s IDA countries scored between 3.0 and 3.5, compared with 66 percent in 2017. Table C.1: Number and Share of Countries, by CPIA Health Score Brackets Score bracket Number of countries Share of total (%) 2.0 or 2.5 4 10.5 3.0 12 31.6 3.5 12 31.6 4.0 6 15.8 4.5 4 10.5 Grand total 38 100.0 Source: CPIA database. 34 In general, progress in health financing remained slow, with insufficient revenue generation, and budget allocations to the sector remained largely input-based, with little progress toward strategic purchasing. Moreover, although data availability and health information systems have improved somewhat across program areas, these gains are not commensurate to the promise innovations in information systems hold for tracking program coverage. Nevertheless, the average score for the health subcomponent was stronger than the average score for the cluster as a whole. For nearly 62 percent of the region’s IDA countries, the health score exceeded their average score for the cluster by almost half a point. Conversely, in the 38 percent of the countries where the cluster average score was higher than the health score, the difference was on average only about half as much and driven by one outlier, Nigeria, where the cluster average score was almost a full point better than the country health score. The difference in scores between the health subcomponent and the overall cluster was more pronounced in countries in fragile situations. For almost 70 percent of the region’s fragile IDA countries, the average score for health was above the average score for the cluster. In the countries where health outperforms the cluster average, the difference Figure C.6: Health Score Compared with the Cluster Average Score: For about 62 between the scores was Social Inclusion/Equity percent of the countries, the significantly higher than in 5.0 health score Policies for social inclusion/equity countries where the cluster 4.5 is higher than the cluster C average is higher than the 4.0 average score. health score (figure C.6), 3.5 pointing to improvements in 3.0 sector policies and access of the 2.5 population in fragile countries to health services. Despite 2.0 challenging environments, 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Ministries of Health Health demonstrated stewardship, Fragile Non-fragile and made notable inroads into Sources: CPIA database; Harmonized List of Fragile Situations FY 2018. service delivery. Education The average score for the education component increased to 3.6 in 2018, up from 3.5 in 2017 (figure C.7). Six aspects that are critical for the performance of the primary and secondary education system were evaluated: sector strategy, education management and information systems, learning assessments, teachers, education finance, and school-based management. Among the 17 fragile countries in the sample, the average education score was 3.3. For the group of non-fragile countries, the average score was 3.7 (figure C.8). Four countries registered changes in their scores: Benin, Chad, and Eritrea recorded increases, while Rwanda recorded a decrease. 35 The increase in Benin’s score The majority of Figure C.7: Average Education Score Distribution countries have reflected the completion and a score of 3.5 16 approval of the new sector plan, or higher on 14 whose preparation started by the education subcomponent. 12 mid-2016. In addition, regular learning assessments were No. of countries 10 conducted, and the results 8 were used to inform education 6 policy. The Ministry of Preschool 4 and Primary Education set up 2 a new division in the National 0 Institute for Training and 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Score Research in Education to carry Source: CPIA database. out learning assessments on a regular basis. The average Figure C.8: Education Score Distribution in Fragile and Non-Fragile Countries education score for fragile 5.0 countries lags that of 4.5 non-fragile countries, but 4.0 some fragile Education score countries have better results 3.5 than several non-fragile 3.0 countries. 2.5 2.0 1.5 Fragile Non-fragile Average Source: CPIA database. In Chad, the increase in the score was due to the implementation of the interim sector plan covering 2018–20, with the support of all education stakeholders. Community teachers still constitute the majority of the teaching workforce, and a new census completed in September 2018 provided, for the first time, a fairly reliable database that will support the payment of training subsidies. The increase in Eritrea’s score reflected improvements in the implementation of the education sector plan and implementation of learning assessments in primary schools. Although Eritrea still does not participate in regional or international learning assessments, the Ministry of Education recognizes their importance. However, despite increases in teachers’ salaries since 2015, the shortage of qualified teachers at all levels remains a major challenge. 36 The lower score for Rwanda reflected new evidence on the status of basic education, where gaps between policies and implementation were identified. Although the new sector plan focuses on relevant priorities, such as enhancing learning outcomes and improving teacher development and management, a greater focus is required to improve policy implementation. This includes paying more attention to schools, teachers, and administrators. Similarly, although data are made available to the public in a timely manner, there is need to strengthen capacity for data integration, analysis, and dissemination of findings to multiple audiences. For instance, data on learning are available for the early grades, but it was not clear how the data were being used to influence policy. It is widely accepted that investing in human capital is necessary for economic development and growth. The Human Capital Index (HCI) developed by the World Bank helps to measure how countries are performing in terms of their population’s human capital. The HCI has three major components: survival, schooling, and health. It is defined as the amount of human capital that a child born today can expect to attain by age 18, given the risks to poor health and poor education that prevail in the country where she lives. Figure C.9 shows the overall HCI distribution. Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are classified in the first quartile. Among the six countries in the second and third quartiles, half of them are IDA countries. Figure C.9: Human Capital Index Distribution Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are classified in the first quartile of the HCI. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile SSA Source: CPIA database. The education component combines information on the quantity (expected years of school) and quality (harmonized test scores) of education to estimate the learning-adjusted years of school (LAYS). This measure is generated by multiplying the expected years of schooling by the ratio of test scores to the international Table C.2: Average HCI and LAYS, by Education Score in the CPIA benchmark of advanced achievement. Education score HCI LAYS The CPIA education score is 2 to 3 0.35 3.9 positively correlated to the HCI and 3.5 0.37 4.4 LAYS results (table C.2). The higher is 4 0.39 5.0 the education score, the higher are 4.5 0.44 5.7 the estimates for the HCI and LAYS. Source: CPIA database; World Development Indicators 2019. Note: HCI = Human Capital Index; LAYS = learning-adjusted years of schooling. 37 For the 33 IDA countries for which the HCI scores were calculated, figure C.10 shows that the average education score is 3.2 for countries in the lowest quartile of the HCI score distribution. For countries in the second and third quartiles, the average score is 3.6. In the highest quartile, the average CPIA education score is 3.9. Countries Figure C.10: Education Score Distribution by Quartile of the HCI Distribution with a higher Human Capital 4.5 Index tend to have higher 4.0 education scores in the CPIA on 3.5 average. 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Lowest quartile Middle quartiles Highest quartile Average Source: CPIA database. Note: Distribution only for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with available HCI data. HCI = Human Capital Index; IDA = International Development Association. Social Protection and Labor Social protection and labor systems help improve equity among populations, build resilience to shocks, and create opportunities by helping poor and vulnerable people smooth consumption, improve productivity, and invest in the human capital of their children. The social protection score has five composite parts: social safety net systems, social safety net programs, labor markets, service delivery and community development, and pensions. As in previous years, the World Bank engaged actively on social safety net systems and programs and service delivery/community development programs. The higher scores for these subcomponents reflect the need to get basic systems for the poorest in place and the attention that the World Bank has brought to these areas, including convening other partners. Social safety nets are increasingly a core instrument in national strategies to address poverty and vulnerability (figure C.11). They have expanded rapidly, and coverage is growing. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that social safety net programs improve equity, resilience, and opportunities for the poor and vulnerable. 38 Figure C.11: Social Safety Net Programs in IDA Countries Social safety nets have 25 50 expanded rapidly, and 45 coverage is 20 40 growing across IDA countries. 35 Number of new programs Number of countries 15 30 25 10 20 15 5 10 5 0 0 1950 1969 1978 1983 1990 1994 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 New programs (left axis) Countries with at least one social safety net (right axis) Source: World Bank staff calculations. However, sustainability through national financing of social safety nets remains a challenge. Development partners continue to finance a large share of most social safety net programs in Sub- Saharan Africa (figure C.12). Figure C.12: Financing of Social Safety Net Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa Development partners 100 continue to 90 finance a large Percent of social safety net spending Share of governments share of most 80 social safety 70 net programs 60 in Sub-Saharan Africa. 50 40 30 Share of development partners 20 10 0 Malawi Mali Chad Benin Kenya Central African Republic Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Somalia South Sudan Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Liberia Uganda Sierra Leone Cameroon Gambia, The Zimbabwe Tanzania Burkina Faso Mauritania Sudan Ghana Senegal Mozambique Seychelles Angola Botswana Gabon Mauritius Namibia Source: World Bank Staff Calculations 39 To bring social safety nets to scale to reach their full potential in Sub-Saharan Africa—making them sustainable and effective at combating poverty and vulnerability—will require a heightened focus on the political, institutional, and fiscal barriers and opportunities. Increasingly, countries where a basic social safety net is in place are turning their attention to labor markets, and particularly the need to provide income, activities, and skills for the growing youth population. Given the low level of formal employment, pension systems in Sub-Saharan Africa tend to have low coverage—typically only civil servants and those employed in the small formal sector are covered—while often consuming a large share of the national social protection budget. The World Bank has provided technical assistance to some countries on pensions and is exploring actively how countries can provide coverage to the large number of informal sector workers. Until these efforts in labor markets and pensions bear fruit, the CPIA scores on these subcomponents are likely to remain lower than those for social safety nets. Within the group of IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is considerable heterogeneity in the scores for social protection and labor, with low scores for conflict-affected countries, such as the Central African Republic and South Sudan, and higher scores for more stable countries with stronger, nationally funded social protection systems, such as Cabo Verde, Rwanda, and Senegal. Other countries with higher scores, such as Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda, continued to rely on external financing. In 2018, the regional average score for social protection and labor decreased to 2.9 from 3.0 in 2017. Ghana and Sierra Leone saw their scores fall. In Ghana, a change in government followed by a change in the lead ministry resulted in significant delays in several policy and program developments, including the preparation and ratification of a Social Protection Bill. In the case of Sierra Leone, the decline reflected a more accurate assessment of the country’s social safety nets vis-à-vis comparator countries. Although social safety nets are becoming more established, better known, and offering greater coverage in many countries, these changes have not yet triggered many increases in country scores. Zimbabwe was the only country that recorded an increase in the score for social safety nets in 2018. Some progress was made in recognizing the poverty and vulnerability challenges and developing a National Social Protection Policy Framework and a Social Protection Sector Review to identify the challenges, gaps, and opportunities, to facilitate an improvement in the social protection sector over time. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability The environmental and natural resources management (ENRM) criterion assesses (i) the appropriateness and implementation of policies across a range of environmental topics: air pollution, water pollution, solid and hazardous waste, freshwater resources, marine and coastal resources, ecosystem/biodiversity management, commercial renewable resources, commercial nonrenewable resources, and climate change; and (ii) the strength of cross-cutting institutional systems, including the quality and effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment system and a range of environmental governance factors, namely, access to information, public participation, cross-sectoral coordination, and accountability. 40 The regional average score for ENRM was 3.2, the same as in 2017. The region’s IDA countries continued to show stronger performance on ENRM compared with other IDA countries. Individual country scores in the region ranged from 1.0 to 4.0, with 65 percent of the countries (25 of 38) scoring 3.0 or 3.5 (map C.1 and figure C.13). Scores in this range generally apply to countries with relatively comprehensive environmental policies but gaps between policy and implementation. One country—Cameroon—saw an uptick in its score, and one country—Tanzania—experienced a decrease. Cameroon’s score increased to 3.5, due to improvements in cross-sectoral coordination, accountability, and air and water pollution as well as freshwater and marine/coastal resources. These improvements more than compensated for the decreased scores on ecosystem/ biodiversity management and climate change. Tanzania’s score decreased from 3.5 to 3.0, due to a weakening of the institutional framework for ENRM. Tunisia Map C.1: Environment Scores for 2018 African IDA Countries CABO VERDE MAURITANIA MALI NIGER SUDAN ERITREA SENEGAL CHAD THE GAMBIA BURKINA FASO DJIBOUTI GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA BENIN NIGERIA CÔTE ETHIOPIA SIERRA LEONE D’IVOIRE GHANA CENTRAL AFRICAN SOUTH REPUBLIC SUDAN LIBERIA CAMEROON SOMALIA TOGO EQUATORIAL GUINEA UGANDA SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE REP. OF KENYA GABON CONGO RWANDA DEM. REP. OF BURUNDI CONGO Overall Scores TANZANIA 4 SEYCHELLES 3.5 COMOROS ANGOLA 3 MALAWI ZAMBIA 2.5 2 ZIMBABWE MOZAMBIQUE MADAGASCAR MAURITIUS 1 NAMIBIA BOTSWANA No Data ESWATINI SOUTH LESOTHO AFRICA Source: CPIAIBRD 44512 database. | AUGUST 2019 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 41 Although there were only a Among IDA Figure C.13: Distribution of CPIA Scores for ENRM for IDA few changes in the countries’ countries in Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2018 the region, 65 final scores, there were 53 percent have 20 individual changes across ENRM scores of 17 the 14 performance criteria. 3.0 or 3.5. 16 Half of the 14 performance criteria recorded a net No. of countries 12 improvement in 2018 across 8 8 the region. These included 6 4 the performance criteria 4 3 covering accountability, water 1 0 0 0 pollution, solid/hazardous 0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 waste, freshwater resources, Environment CPIA score, 2018 marine/coastal resources, Source: CPIA database. commercial nonrenewable resources, and climate change. As in 2017, performance on the accountability measure showed the strongest improvement (with six countries improving their score and only one country registering a decrease). Public participation, quality/effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment, cross-sectoral coordination, air pollution, and ecosystem/ biodiversity management recorded no net change in scores across countries. Overall, the relative performance across the 14 metrics was similar to that of previous years: • All the institutional measures except accountability (that is, public access to information, participation, environmental assessment, and coordination) were within the top six performers by average score, although the gap is closing, given recent improvements across the themes. • The ecosystem/biodiversity Countries that Figure C.14: 2018 CPIA Scores for ENRM Plotted against Total are performing CPIA Scores without ENRM Scores management metric was well on the again a top-performing environmental 4.5 sector-specific measure, sustainability indicator tend 4.0 but it was joined by climate to have high change this year. 3.5 Environment CPIA score overall CPIA scores. • Countries performing well 3.0 on the environmental 2.5 sustainability indicator tend to perform well also 2.0 across the other metrics 1.5 composing the overall 1.0 CPIA score 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 (figure C.14). Overall CPIA score (without environment indicator score) Source: CPIA database. 42 CLUSTER D: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONS Cluster D of the CPIA covers property rights and rule-based governance; quality of budgetary and financial management; efficiency of revenue mobilization; quality of public administration; and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector. The regional average score for cluster D—also referred to as the governance cluster—was 3.0 in 2018. Country scores across the governance cluster display no consistent upward trend over time (figure D.1). Over the past 10 years, the overall score for the governance cluster has averaged 3.0, reaching its highest point in 2013, at 3.1. Although the score for the efficiency of revenue mobilization component has been relatively high, it has remained unchanged since 2014. Meanwhile, the scores for property rights and rule-based governance and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector have stayed consistently low and well below the cluster average. The persistent low scores in these areas are a major concern, as they suggest a sustained loss of public resources that could be effectively channeled toward development programs. Moreover, the quality of budgetary and financial management, which is critical for governments to secure and use resources effectively, efficiently, and transparently, has trended downward in recent years. And, despite recent gains, the quality of public administration remains modest. Figure D.1: Public Sector Management and Institutions Cluster Trend Country scores across the 3.5 governance cluster display no discernable Governance indicators CPIA score 3.3 upward trend over time. 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cluster D Property rights & rule-based governance Quality of budgetary & nancial management E ciency of revenue mobilization Transparency, accountability & corruption in public sector Quality of public administration Source: CPIA database. IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa continue to lag other IDA countries on all components of the governance cluster (figure D.2). The gaps are especially large for the criteria measuring the transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector; property rights and rule-based governance; and quality of budgetary and financial management. The scores are similar on the quality of public administration. The highest score for the region’s IDA countries continued to be on the efficiency of revenue mobilization criterion. 43 IDA countries Figure D.2: Governance Cluster Scores: Comparing IDA Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with Other IDA Countries in Sub-Saharan SSA IDA Versus Non-SSA IDA Countries Africa continue 3.5 to lag other IDA 3.4 countries on all 3.2 3.1 components of 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 the governance 2.8 2.7 cluster. Property rights & rule- Quality of budgetary & Efficiency of revenue Quality of public Transparency, accountability & Cluster D average based government financial management mobilization administration corruption in public sector SSA IDA Overall IDA excluding SSA Source: CPIA database. An in-depth look at the governance scores reveals a more varied picture (figure D.3). The scores for non-fragile IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa were similar to those of other IDA non- fragile countries on the quality of budgetary and financial management and quality of public administration components, but they lagged on the other components. Fragile IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have the lowest scores across the governance cluster. Their performance level was notably weaker on property rights and rule of law and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector. The scores for the quality of public administration component were also very low, but they were similar to those of other fragile IDA countries, highlighting that strengthening the effectiveness of government remains a major challenge across fragile IDA countries. Fragile countries in Sub-Saharan Africa performed relatively better on the efficiency of revenue mobilization criterion, and their score of 3.1 was similar to that of other fragile IDA countries. In 2018, nine countries increased their overall score on the governance cluster (figure D.4). Most notably, five fragile countries—the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, The Gambia, and Togo—saw their overall governance scores increase. This was an encouraging development, as exiting from fragility would require a strengthening of governance policies and institutions. However, the improvements seemed modest, consisting of a 0.1-point increase over the 2017 score. The non-fragile countries that registered an increase in their governance scores were Cabo Verde, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, which notched a 0.2-point increase in its average governance score. These increases in the overall governance score were partially offset by decreases in seven countries, which included three fragile countries—Chad, Liberia, and Sudan. There were more decreases than increases on the criteria assessing the efficiency of revenue mobilization, quality of budgetary and financial management, and property rights and rule-based governance, 44 Figure D.3: Governance Scores: Fragile versus Non-Fragile Comparators Fragile IDA Governance Scores: Fragile Versus Non-fragile Countries countries in 3.7 Sub-Saharan 3.6 Africa have the 3.4 3.4 lowest scores 3.2 3.2 3.2 across the 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 governance 2.8 cluster among 2.6 2.6 all IDA fragile 2.5 2.5 2.4 countries. 2.3 Property rights & Quality of budgetary & Efficiency of revenue Quality of public Transparency, accountability & rule-based government financial management mobilization administration corruption in public sector Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries excluding SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile excluding SSA countries Source: CPIA database. highlighting areas of weakness that are weighing on the governance scores in the region’s IDA countries. Liberia and Tanzania experienced a significant decline in the quality of their governance policy and institutional frameworks in 2018, with a 0.4-point decrease in their average scores. Country performances under each component of the government cluster are discussed in the following. Figure D.4: Changes in the Cluster D Scores in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2018 More countries Property Rights and recorded Rule-Based Governance Uganda increases than decreases in This criterion assesses the Togo the governance extent to which economic Sierra Leone cluster score. Rwanda activity is facilitated by an Gambia, The effective legal system and Eritrea rule-based governance Côte d'Ivoire structure in which property Central African Republic and contract rights are Cabo Verde respected and enforced. The Zambia average regional score for Sudan this criterion was unchanged, Senegal at 2.8. The score increased in Lesotho two countries—Côte d’Ivoire Chad and Togo—but decreased Tanzania in three countries—Liberia, Liberia Senegal, and Tanzania –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 (table D.1). Source: CPIA database. 45 Table D.1: Changes in Governance Cluster Scores Cluster D indicators Increases Decreases Property rights & rule-based Côte d'Ivoire, Togo Liberia, Senegal, Tanzania government Quality of budgetary Central African Republic, Uganda Congo, Dem. Rep., Lesotho, & financial management Liberia, Zimbabwe Efficiency of revenue mobilization Sierra Leone Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tanzania Quality of public administration Congo, Dem. Rep., Ethiopia, Rwanda Liberia, Tanzania Transparency, accountability & Cabo Verde, Eritrea, The Gambia, Liberia, Tanzania, Zambia corruption in public sector Uganda, Zimbabwe Changes in cluster D averages Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Lesotho, Liberia, Senegal, Côte d'Iviore, Eritrea, Gambia The, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda Source: CPIA database. The increases in the scores for Côte d’Ivoire and Togo reflected gains in the rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are protected and enforced. Côte d’Ivoire, for example, implemented reforms in the areas of starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting credit, paying taxes, and enforcing contracts. Most notably, enforcing contracts was made easier by the introduction of a law that regulates all aspects of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. In Togo, reforms led to greater transparency, reduced red tape, and cost-effectiveness in registering property. In 2018, securing rights to a property required five procedures (6.2 in Sub-Saharan Africa), 84 days (183 days in Ease of Doing Business 2017 and 53.9 days in Sub-Saharan Africa), and cost 5.9 percent of the property value (9.2 percent in Ease of Doing Business 2017 and 7.6 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa). On average, in 2018, enforcing a contract through the court system took 488 days (655.1 days in Sub-Saharan Africa) and cost 47.5 percent of the claim (42.3 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa). The decreases in the scores for Liberia, Senegal, and Tanzania highlighted the challenges to enhancing the quality of the legal and judicial system and mitigating the effects of crime and violence on economic activity and citizen security, as well as the need for more reforms in these areas. In Liberia, for example, tenure positions in core integrity institutions, such as the Public Procurement and Concession Commission, were abolished, weakening the statutory power of these institutions to carry out their governance functions. In Tanzania, the effectiveness of the police in combating crime weakened, eroding citizens’ trust in the police force. In Senegal, organized crime emerged as an important governance issue. A recent report prepared for the Inter-Governmental Action Group Against Money Laundering in West Africa found several strategic deficiencies, which could lead to close monitoring by the Financial Action Task Force on money laundering and potential public listing. 46 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management This criterion assesses the extent to which there is a comprehensive and credible budget linked to priorities, financial management systems ensure that the budget is implemented as intended, and accounting and fiscal reporting are timely and accurate. The average regional score for this criterion decreased from 3.1 in 2017 to 3.0 in 2018. The score increased in two countries—the Central African Republic and Uganda—but decreased in four countries—the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Liberia, and Zimbabwe—representing a setback for the region. The increase in the scores for the Central African Republic and Uganda reflected changes in public financial management systems that improved budget implementation. Effective budget execution systems are critical to ensure that resources are used efficiently to implement the policies incorporated in the budget, provide public goods such as roads, and deliver public services such as water and sanitation to the population. In the Central African Republic, a set of ministerial orders and decisions were implemented that strengthened budget execution. The payment system for suppliers of goods and services was streamlined, and a comprehensive exercise for the clearance of domestic arrears, including wages and domestic commercial arrears, was successfully carried out. Progress was also made on catching up on the accounting backlog and the establishment of the Treasury Single Account. In Uganda, the deviation of actual expenditures from budgeted expenditures narrowed, and a significant cleanup of the payroll was achieved together with the introduction of the Treasury Single Account. A strengthened external audit function also contributed to the increased score. For the budget to be an effective development tool, during its preparation, trade-offs and prioritization among programs must be made to ensure that it fits the government’s policies and priorities. An effective budget reporting system provides a means of assessing how well the government is doing. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, government priorities were not adequately reflected in the budget, as the budget preparation process remained strongly influenced by political considerations. In Zimbabwe, fiscal reporting weakened. Budget execution reports as well as consolidated financial reports were limited in scope and issued with substantial delays. Lesotho faced challenges in public financial management and fiscal reporting despite the adoption of a new Integrated Financial Management Information System. Key public financial management challenges included arrears management; lack of enforcement of expenditure discipline, which undermined budgetary and cash management; and delays in budgeting processes. Similarly, in Liberia, the inability to activate the budget module of the Integrated Financial Management Information System led to the accumulation of domestic arrears, inconsistent quarterly financial reports, and lack of bank reconciliations. The government amended the 2009 Public Financial Management Act to remove the requirement that the Controller and Accountant General be a chartered and qualified accountant. Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization This criterion assesses the quality of tax policy and tax administration. The regional average score for this criterion was unchanged, at 3.4, remaining the highest score across the governance cluster. However, only one country—Sierra Leone—saw its score increase, while the score decreased in four countries—Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Tanzania. IDA countries across Sub-Saharan Africa need to step up revenue mobilization to finance their development plans. Although all the countries 47 have room to increase revenue, progress on revenue mobilization has remained slow. In countries that have been able to increase domestic revenue, their progress was based on improvements in revenue administration and tax policy reforms. In Sierra Leone, total domestic revenue increased to 13.8 percent of GDP in 2018, from 12.2 percent of GDP in 2017, reflecting efforts in tax policy reforms and tax administration. The increase in domestic revenue followed the elimination of duty and tax waivers, introduction of the Treasury Single Account, implementation of the Economic Community of West African States common external tariff, and robust collection of tax arrears. In addition, the Extractive Industries Revenue Act provided a consistent taxation regime for the mining sector and reduced opportunities for corruption by prohibiting the case-by-case assessment of mining contracts. Efforts to reduce tax evasion and strengthen tax administration included the implementation of a biometric staff attendance system, introduction of asset declaration forms, and expanded payment by taxpayers directly through the banks. By contrast, in the countries that saw their scores decrease, the yield of the domestic tax system weakened, as widespread exemptions narrowed the tax base amid weak capacity in customs and low compliance of taxpayers. In Chad, revenue from the value-added tax, at about 1 percent of non-oil GDP, is among the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Ethiopia, after rising steadily, the tax- to-GDP ratio declined in 2017–18, despite a rapidly growing economy, reflecting the relatively low efficiency of the domestic tax system. Although Ethiopia continued to rely heavily on trade taxes, direct and indirect taxes underperformed. In Sudan, a multiplicity of taxes, fees, and duties charged at different rates imposed a heavy burden on business compliance. Similarly, in Tanzania, the underperformance of domestic and nontax revenue reflected the imposition of many taxes and levies, complex procedures in tax compliance, and the high cost of paying taxes. Quality of Public Administration This criterion assesses the functioning of the core administration—defined as the civilian central government and subnational governments, excluding health and education personnel and police—in three areas: managing its own operations, ensuring quality in policy implementation and regulatory management, and coordinating the larger public sector human resources management (HRM) regime outside the core administration. The average regional score for this criterion increased from 2.8 in 2017 to 2.9 in 2018, as increases in the scores for the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Rwanda offset decreases in the scores for Liberia and Tanzania. However, the scores are relatively low, suggesting that the quality of public administration remains modest across IDA countries in the region. Although a government’s choice of policies matters, it is also important that it implements those policies well. The effectiveness of government depends on the talent it can attract, the incentives it fosters, and the organizational structure it imposes.6 The Democratic Republic of Congo’s score edged up, from 2.5 in 2017 to 3.0 in 2018, consistent with a modest improvement in capacity to ensure quality in policy and regulatory management. During 2018, despite an ongoing political crisis, the Democratic Republic 6 World Bank, 2008, “The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development,” Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank, Washington, DC. 48 of Congo undertook reforms that saw the passing of laws that contributed to policy and regulatory management, including the public-private partnership law, the mining code, and the telecom law. Merit is progressively becoming the predominant factor for appointments and promotions in public entities. In Ethiopia and Rwanda—which saw their scores rise from 3.5 in 2017 to 4.0 in 2018—the core administration demonstrated relatively stronger internal management capacity. In Ethiopia, for example, the recently amended Civil Service Proclamation 1064/2017 strongly reestablished merit as the main recruitment and promotion criterion, through the adoption of entry exams for new civil servants and competency tests for those in service. In Rwanda, recruitment and selection of civil servants was enhanced by the law establishing the general statutes of public service; a Presidential Order that determines the modalities for recruitment, appointment, and nomination of public servants; the Prime Minister’s Order establishing the procedure of performance appraisal and promotion of public servants; and a law governing results-based management performance in the branches of government. By contrast, in Liberia and Tanzania, the scores for the quality of public administration criterion fell from 2.5 to 2.0 and from 3.5 to 3.0, respectively. Liberia’s low scores reflected weaker internal management capacity. The core administration also demonstrated weak capacity to coordinate the broader public sector HRM. Most notably, the Civil Service Management System was ineffective in ensuring the integrity of the civil service payroll. More than 1,500 teachers who qualify for retirement remain on the regular teachers’ payroll. In Tanzania, decision-making processes narrowed, particularly for economic policies, and led to slow and abrupt decisions, on occasion reneging on Cabinet decisions. Changes were introduced in the Statistics Act that limit other independent agencies from analyzing the statistics published by the government, making it difficult to verify the accuracy and reliability of official statistics. Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and the results obtained. Transparency and accountability are critical for the effective use of public resources. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and institutional checks on the authority of the chief executive. Corruption in the public sector must be fought vigorously and visibly. Government leaders send powerful signals about values and the limits of acceptable behavior when they decide how to respond to cases of misbehavior. The regional average score for this criterion was unchanged, at 2.7, remaining well below the governance cluster average score. Five countries—Cabo Verde, Eritrea, The Gambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe—recorded an increase in their score for this criterion, while three countries—Liberia, Tanzania, and Zambia—recorded a decrease. In Cabo Verde, a low-corruption country, transparency and accountability were further enhanced through strengthened internal control law, which brought the entire public sector under its fold, including state-owned enterprises. The accountability of the executive was preserved by effective 49 internal controls, with government audits conducted regularly by the General Inspectorate of Finance. The increased public access to fiscal information was recognized in the recent public expenditure and financial accountability exercise, which upgraded the rating to B (from C in 2008). In Eritrea, the move toward the normalization of relations with Ethiopia and outreach with international development partners such as the IMF has had a modest, positive impact on information flows about the public sector. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the political and governance setup, this availability of information was viewed as progress toward transparency. The increase in the scores for The Gambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe mainly reflected improvements in access of civil society to information on public affairs and public policies, efforts to control corruption and combat state capture, and integrity in the management of public resources. In The Gambia, the new president made public access to information a priority. The ministers of the Interior, Justice and Information, as well as the Office of the President, hold regular press briefings. In the security sector, the police and the army also regularly hold press conferences. In addition, the authorities are working with civil society to pass an access-to-information law and review laws that impede access to information. As part of efforts to control corruption, the authorities are also reforming state-owned enterprises to break from abusive executive interference in these enterprises. In Uganda, in line with the new public financial management strategy, which provides for enhanced monitoring of the use of public resources by bringing citizens on board to monitor service delivery contracts, the government is addressing high-level corruption risks. Measures included strengthening of citizen engagement, procurement, and legal frameworks. At the district level, civil society organizations are helping to oversee public service delivery contracts. In Zimbabwe, civil society participation and voice continued to improve, key budget documents were increasingly available to the public, and significant parts of the print and online media operated outside the influence of government. In addition, the government began reforming public procurement, disbanded the State Procurement Board, and decentralized procurements to line ministries. By contrast, Liberia, Tanzania, and Zambia experienced a significant weakening of accountability and transparency mechanisms and institutions. In Liberia, checks and balances on the executive weakened. Access of civil society to information on public affairs was inadequate, with delays in the publication of fiscal reports in noncompliance with the existing Public Financial Management Act. Government hirings of civil servants and public contracting were less transparent. Similarly, in Tanzania and Zambia, the judiciary and legislature lacked the resources and authority to provide adequate checks on executive power. In addition, in Zambia, opposition leaders and the media continued to face high-profile court cases. 50 Going forward, concerted efforts would be needed in IDA countries across the region to strengthen the rule of law, enhance transparency and accountability, and intensify the fight against corruption in the public sector. Although the region’s IDA countries underperform other IDA countries across most indicators in the governance cluster, their scores are particularly low in these areas. International experience suggests that increasing transparency and accountability; enforcing the rule of law, which can effectively protect property rights; and vigorously combating corruption will be necessary as IDA countries in the region seek to accelerate growth to reduce extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity. To improve property rights and justice services, laws and regulations need to be simplified, so that business and property registration and contract enforcement can be carried out expeditiously and at less cost. Attention to court delays and backlogs in the formal court system is critical, especially in commercial, tax, land, and labor matters that directly affect the cost of business transactions. Since a large segment of the population in the region uses traditional justice systems, dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation could be promoted. Reforms that streamline business processes, leverage technology and statistics, and provide dignified space to users to access services and enable justice employees to perform productively would be important in expediting justice service delivery, as well as in improving user perceptions. Setting up community justice centers and mobile court services that offer free legal assistance and other justice services has helped the vulnerable (for example, women and children) and marginalized in society in urban and rural areas in other countries around the world. To minimize the risks of corruption, preventive measures that countries could deploy include the design and implementation of asset declaration by senior public officials and verification systems. Development of conflict of interest legislation and procurement standards is considered beneficial in cutting down corruption channels. Development of a stolen asset recovery and a management system through better legislative, regulatory, and institutional frameworks are also effective measures. Strengthening external auditing—through a Supreme Audit Institution Performance Measurement Framework and broadening the oversight of the judiciary—may also be key to combating corruption. The design and implementation of corruption complaint handling systems that have appropriate whistle blower protection for employees and confidential citizen feedback mechanisms may also be considered in managing the risks of corruption. 51 CPIA Africa: Compare Your Country COMPARE YOUR COUNTRY Benin 3.5 Burkina Faso 3.6 Burundi 2.9 2018 Country CPIA Score IDA AVG. 3.2 SSA IDA AVG. 3.1 CPIA SCORE 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2018 Cabo Verde 3.8 Cameroon 3.3 Central African Republic 2.6 Chad 2.7 Comoros 2.8 Congo, Democra�c Republic 2.9 Congo, Republic 2.7 Côte d’Ivoire 3.5 Ethiopia 3.5 Gambia, The 3.0 Ghana 3.5 Guinea 3.2 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 Kenya 3.7 Lesotho 3.3 Liberia 2.9 Madagascar 3.3 Malawi 3.2 Mali 3.4 Mauritania 3.4 Mozambique 3.2 Niger 3.4 Nigeria 3.1 Rwanda 4.0 São Tomé and Príncipe 3.1 Senegal 3.7 Sierra Leone 3.2 Sudan 2.3 Tanzania 3.5 Togo 3.2 Uganda 3.7 Zambia 3.3 Zimbabwe 2.8 Eritrea 2.0 South Sudan 1.5* *2012 is the first year that CPIA scores for South Sudan are available. Africa Knowledge In Brief Build your own graphs at www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA 52 C O U N T R Y TA B L E S BENIN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 10.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 — 3.8 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 902 (Structural Policies and Public Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 50 and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Benin Average 3.7 Economic Management 3.8 3.1 3.6 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.3 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Benin IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.5 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Benin Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Benin • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.1 0.0 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 54 BURKINA FASO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 19.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 14.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.6 — 3.7 3.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 731 (Economic Management and Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Policies for Social Inclusion (Public Sector Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 43 and Equity) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Burkina SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Faso Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.7 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Burkina Faso IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 4.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.4 3.0 3.6 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Burkina Faso Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.6 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Burkina Faso • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.6 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 55 BURUNDI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 3.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 — 3.5 2.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 275 (Policies for Social (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 75 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Burundi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.7 3.1 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 2.9 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.7 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Burundi IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.3 3.0 and Institutions 2.9 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 3.1 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Burundi Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 1.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Burundi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.3 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.6 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 56 CABO VERDE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 2.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.8 0.1 4.0 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 3,654 Above SSA IDA Avg. (Public Sector Management and Institutions) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 7 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Cabo SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Verde Average 4.4 Economic Management 3.3 3.1 4.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 4.0 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 3.6 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.4 Trade 4.5 3.7 3.2 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Cabo Verde IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.9 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 4.0 3.0 3.8 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 4.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 4.1 Quality of Public Administration 4.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Cabo Verde Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 4.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.8 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Cabo Verde • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa 0.0 0.0 • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -1.0 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 57 CAMEROON World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 25.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 38.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.7 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,527 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 23 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Cameroon Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.7 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Cameroon IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.3 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.2 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Cameroon Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Cameroon • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 58 CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 2.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.6 0.1 3.0 2.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 510 (Policies for Social Inclusion Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Equity and Public Sector Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 78 Management and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Central SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator African Republic Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.0 3.1 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 2.4 Structural Policies 2.5 3.2 Trade 3.0 3.7 2.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.0 Central African IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Republic Average Average Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.4 3.3 Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Policies and Institutions for 3.2 2.8 2.5 Environmental Sustainability 2.8 2018 Public Sector Management 2.4 3.0 2.6 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.8 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Central African Transparency, Accountability, 2.7 in SSA outside SSA Republic 2.5 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.6 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Central African Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 59 CHAD World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 15.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 11.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.7 — 2.8 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 730 (Economic Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change and Policies for Social (Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 34 and Institutions) Inclusion and Equity) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Chad Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 Debt Policy 2.0 3.1 2.5 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 Trade 3.0 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.0 Chad IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.8 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.6 3.0 2.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Chad Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Chad • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.4 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 60 COMOROS World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.8 — 3.0 2.6 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,446 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 18 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Comoros Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.8 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Comoros IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.8 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.6 3.0 2.8 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.0 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 2.8 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.5 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Comoros Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.8 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Comoros • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.5 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.2 0.2 0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 61 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 84.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 47.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.1 3.2 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 562 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 72 and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Congo, SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Dem. Rep. Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.2 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.4 Trade 3.5 3.7 2.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Congo, Dem. Rep. IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Congo, Dem. Rep. Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Congo, Democratic Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.7 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.3 0.3 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 62 CONGO, REPUBLIC World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 5.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 11.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.7 — 2.8 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,148 (Structural Policies and Policies (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change for Social Inclusion and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 35 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Congo, SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Republic Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.7 3.1 3.3 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 2.0 3.1 2.9 Structural Policies 2.8 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 2.5 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.0 Congo, Republic IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.8 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 2.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 2.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.9 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Congo, Republic Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Congo, Republic • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa 0.0 • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.2 -0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.5 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 63 CÔTE D’IVOIRE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 25.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 43.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.7 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,716 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 28 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Côte SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator d’Ivoire Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.7 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.5 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 3.0 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.5 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Côte d’Ivoire IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Côte d’Ivoire Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Côte d’Ivoire • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 1.0 1.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.9 0.8 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 64 ERITREA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) NA Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) NA previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.0 0.1 2.6 1.3 GDP per capita (current US$) NA (Policies for Social Inclusion Below SSA IDA Avg. and Equity and Public Sector (Economic Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) NA and Structural Policies) Management and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Eritrea Average 3.4 Economic Management 1.3 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.5 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.5 3.0 2.6 Debt Policy 1.0 3.1 Structural Policies 1.3 3.2 2.2 Trade 2.0 3.7 1.8 Financial Sector 1.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 1.0 3.0 Eritrea IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.6 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.6 3.0 and Institutions 2.0 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.2 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Eritrea Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Eritrea • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 65 ETHIOPIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 109.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 84.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.8 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 772 (Policies for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity) (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 28 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Ethiopia Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.5 3.1 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Ethiopia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.8 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 4.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ethiopia Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Ethiopia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.2 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 66 GAMBIA, THE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 2.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.0 — 3.4 2.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 713 (Policies for Social Below SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 11 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Gambia, SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator The Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.3 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.5 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 2.0 3.1 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.8 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Gambia, The IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.0 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Gambia, The Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Gambia, The • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.0 0.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 -0.4 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -1.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 67 GHANA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 29.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 65.6 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.1 3.7 3.3 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,202 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 13 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Ghana Average 4.0 Economic Management 3.3 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Ghana IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.4 Public Sector Management 3.6 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 4.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.9 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Ghana Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Ghana • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 -0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.4 -0.4 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.7 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 68 GUINEA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 12.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 11.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.5 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 885 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 33 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Guinea Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 2.9 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 2.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Guinea IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Guinea Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Guinea • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 1.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.4 0.3 0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 69 GUINEA-BISSAU World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 1.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 1.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.5 — 2.8 2.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 778 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 65 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Guinea- SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Bissau Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.7 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 Structural Policies 2.8 3.2 2.4 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.0 Financial Sector 2.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.0 Guinea-Bissau IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.3 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 2.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.0 3.0 2.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.7 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Guinea-Bissau Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 1.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Guinea-Bissau • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.4 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.6 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 70 KENYA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 51.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 87.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 — 4.0 3.4 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,711 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 37 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Kenya Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Kenya IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.4 3.0 3.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Kenya Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Kenya • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa 0.1 • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 71 LESOTHO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 2.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 2.8 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 0.1 3.5 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,324 (Economic Management and Above SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) Public Sector Management Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 55 and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Lesotho Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.2 3.1 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.5 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Lesotho IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.5 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.4 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.3 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.5 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Lesotho Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Lesotho • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.3 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 -0.3 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 -0.6 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 72 LIBERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 3.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.9 0.2 3.2 2.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 674 (Public Sector Management Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 39 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Liberia Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.2 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 2.9 Structural Policies 2.8 3.2 2.7 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.0 Liberia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.5 3.0 2.9 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 2.9 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Liberia Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.9 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Liberia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.4 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 73 MADAGASCAR World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 26.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 12.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.7 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 461 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 78 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Madagascar Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.7 3.1 3.6 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.5 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.0 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.8 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Madagascar IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.3 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 3.3 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Madagascar 2.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Madagascar • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.3 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 74 MALAWI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 18.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 7.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.6 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 389 (Policies for Social Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 70 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Malawi Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.1 3.4 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.0 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Malawi IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.6 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Malawi Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Malawi • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 75 MALI World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 19.1 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 17.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 — 4.0 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 901 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 48 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mali Average 3.8 Economic Management 4.0 3.1 3.7 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.3 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Mali IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.6 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Mali Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Mali • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.2 -0.2 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.4 -0.4 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 76 MAURITANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 4.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 5.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 — 3.5 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,219 (Economic Management and Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Policies for Social Inclusion (Structural Policies) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 6 and Equity) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mauritania Average 3.5 Economic Management 3.5 3.1 3.4 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Mauritania IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.3 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.2 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Mauritania Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Mauritania • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.3 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.0 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 77 MOZAMBIQUE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 29.5 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 14.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.4 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 490 (Policies for Social Inclusion Above SSA IDA Avg. No change and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 62 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Mozambique Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.0 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Mozambique IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Mozambique Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Mozambique • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -1.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 78 NIGER World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 22.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 9.2 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.4 — 3.8 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 412 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 44 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Niger Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.8 3.1 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.5 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Niger IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.2 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.1 3.0 3.4 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Niger Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.4 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Niger • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.0 0.0 0.0 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 79 NIGERIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 195.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 397.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 0.1 3.4 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,028 (Policies for Social Inclusion (Public Sector Management At the SSA IDA Avg. and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 47 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Nigeria Average 3.8 Economic Management 3.3 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.6 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.4 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 Structural Policies 3.0 3.2 3.2 Trade 3.5 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Nigeria IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 3.1 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Nigeria Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Nigeria • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.3 -0.5 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.9 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 80 RWANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 12.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 9.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 4.0 — 4.2 3.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 773 (Structural Policies and Policies for (Public Sector Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Social Inclusion and Equity) Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 55 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Rwanda Average 4.2 Economic Management 4.0 3.1 4.0 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.8 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 4.2 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 4.5 3.0 Rwanda IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 4.2 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 4.0 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 3.5 2018 Public Sector Management 3.8 3.0 4.0 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 4.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 4.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Rwanda Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 4.0 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Rwanda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.4 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: 0.2 0.2 0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 81 SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 0.2 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 0.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.1 — 3.2 2.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,001 (Structural Policies and Public At the SSA IDA Avg. No change Sector Management (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 26 and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend São Tomé SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator and Príncipe Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.8 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.1 Debt Policy 2.5 3.1 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 2.9 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.7 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 São Tomé IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.3 and Príncipe Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.1 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.0 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries São Tomé Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA and Príncipe 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.1 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries São Tomé and Príncipe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.2 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.1 0.1 0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.0 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 82 SENEGAL World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 15.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 24.1 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 0.1 4.0 3.5 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,522 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 34 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Senegal Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.7 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Senegal IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.4 3.5 3.2 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.5 3.0 3.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.7 Quality of Public Administration 3.5 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Senegal Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 3.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Senegal • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.3 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.1 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 83 SIERRA LEONE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 7.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 4.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 — 3.2 3.1 GDP per capita (current US$) 523 (Economic Management, Structural Above SSA IDA Avg. No change Policies, and Public Sector (Policies for Social Inclusion Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 49 and Equity) Management and Institutions) (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend Sierra SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Leone Average 3.4 Economic Management 3.2 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.5 3.4 3.3 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 3.2 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 Structural Policies 3.2 3.2 3.1 Trade 3.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Sierra Leone IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.1 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.3 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Sierra Leone Transparency, Accountability, 3.0 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Sierra Leone • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 84 SOUTH SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 11.0 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) NA previous year performing cluster performing cluster 1.5 — 2.0 1.0 GDP per capita (current US$) NA Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 73 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend South SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.5 Economic Management 1.0 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 1.0 3.0 2.5 Debt Policy 1.0 3.1 Structural Policies 2.0 3.2 2.0 Trade 2.0 3.7 1.5 Financial Sector 2.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.0 3.0 South IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 1.5 3.3 Sudan Average Average Gender Equality 1.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 2.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 1.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 1.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 1.4 3.0 and Institutions 1.5 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 1.5 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 1.0 3.0 2012 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.0 3.4 2.1 Quality of Public Administration 1.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries South Sudan Transparency, Accountability, 1.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 1.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2010 to 2018 Change in CPIA Scores from 2012 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries South Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.3 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 -0.6 -0.6 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.8 -0.8 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 85 SUDAN World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 41.8 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 40.9 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.3 0.1 2.7 1.8 GDP per capita (current US$) 977 Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 8 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Sudan Average 3.4 Economic Management 1.8 3.1 3.2 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 1.5 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.8 Debt Policy 1.5 3.1 2.6 Structural Policies 2.7 3.2 2.4 Trade 2.5 3.7 2.2 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Sudan IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 2.5 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 2.5 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 2.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 2.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 2.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.1 3.0 and Institutions 2.3 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 2.5 3.4 2.4 Quality of Public Administration 2.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Sudan Transparency, Accountability, 1.5 2.7 in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Sudan • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.2 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 86 TANZANIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 56.3 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 57.4 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.5 0.2 4.0 3.0 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,051 (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 41 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Tanzania Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.0 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.5 3.4 Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.0 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.0 Financial Sector 3.0 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.0 3.0 Tanzania IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.6 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 4.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.0 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.0 3.0 3.5 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Tanzania Transparency, Accountability, Countries in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Tanzania • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. -0.1 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.2 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.3 -0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.5 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 87 TOGO World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 7.9 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 5.3 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.2 0.1 3.4 2.9 GDP per capita (current US$) 672 (Policies for Social (Public Sector Management Above SSA IDA Avg. Inclusion and Equity) and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 49 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Togo Average 3.6 Economic Management 3.3 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 3.2 Fiscal Policy 3.0 3.0 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 2.8 Structural Policies 3.3 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 2.4 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Togo IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.9 3.0 3.2 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 2.5 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.0 3.4 2.9 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Togo Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 3.0 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.2 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Togo • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.6 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.3 0.3 0.3 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 0.1 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 88 UGANDA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 42.7 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 27.5 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.7 0.1 4.2 3.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 643 (Public Sector Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) Management and Institutions) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 39 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Uganda Average 4.0 Economic Management 4.2 3.1 3.8 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4 Fiscal Policy 4.0 3.0 3.6 Debt Policy 4.5 3.1 3.4 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 3.2 Trade 4.5 3.7 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 3.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.0 Uganda IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.5 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 4.0 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 3.5 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.5 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability 2018 3.5 Public Sector Management 3.2 3.0 3.7 and Institutions Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.5 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.8 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Transparency, Accountability, Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Uganda 2.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.7 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Uganda • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.0 0.0 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 -0.1 -0.1 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized -0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 89 ZAMBIA World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 17.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 26.7 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 3.3 — 3.8 2.7 GDP per capita (current US$) 1,540 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 58 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Zambia Average 3.6 Economic Management 2.7 3.1 3.5 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4 3.4 Fiscal Policy 2.0 3.0 3.3 Debt Policy 3.0 3.1 3.2 Structural Policies 3.8 3.2 Trade 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.0 Financial Sector 3.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 4.0 3.0 Zambia IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 3.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 3.5 3.2 3.4 Environmental Sustainability Public Sector Management 2018 3.5 3.1 3.0 and Institutions 3.3 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8 3.5 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.0 2010 3.6 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4 3.4 Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.9 Non-Fragile Non-Fragile Countries Zambia Transparency, Accountability, 2.5 2.7 Countries in SSA outside SSA and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 3.3 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Zambia • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 0.1 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. 0.0 Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: -0.1 -0.1 • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 -0.8 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 90 ZIMBABWE World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional Assessment CPIA 2018 Quick Facts Population (millions) 14.4 Change from Highest Lowest CPIA Score GDP (current US$, billions) 31.0 previous year performing cluster performing cluster 2.8 — 3.7 2.2 GDP per capita (current US$) 2,147 (Policies for Social Below SSA IDA Avg. No change Inclusion and Equity) (Economic Management) Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2015, est.) 17 (2018) Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2018 Trend SSA IDA Overall CPIA Scores Indicator Zimbabwe Average 3.5 Economic Management 2.2 3.1 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 2.0 3.4 3.0 Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.0 2.5 Debt Policy 2.0 3.1 Structural Policies 2.5 3.2 2.0 Trade 2.5 3.7 1.5 Financial Sector 2.5 2.8 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Business Regulatory Environment 2.5 3.0 Zimbabwe IDA Borrowers SSA IDA Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.7 3.3 Average Average Gender Equality 4.0 3.2 Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3 Comparison Building Human Resources 4.0 3.6 Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9 Comparing Overall CPIA Scores Policies and Institutions for 4.0 3.2 2.8 Environmental Sustainability 2018 2.8 Public Sector Management 2.8 3.0 and Institutions 2.8 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 2.0 2.8 2.8 Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.0 3.0 2010 3.0 Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 4.0 3.4 2.0 Quality of Public Administration 2.5 2.9 Fragile Countries Fragile Countries Zimbabwe Transparency, Accountability, in SSA outside SSA 2.5 2.7 and Corruption in the Public Sector Overall CPIA Score 2.8 3.1 Progress Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Change in CPIA Scores from 2010 to 2018 • IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides credits to the poorest countries Zimbabwe • SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa • Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2019 1.9 • The cutoff date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2019. Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows: • IDA Borrowing Countries: 73 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2018 0.7 0.8 • SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2018 0.5 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized 0.2 Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) Economic Structural Policies Public Sector Overall • Fragile Countries outside SSA: 13 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Management Policies for Social Management & CPIA Inclusion/Equity Institutions Score Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2019 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 22 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries) NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 91 Appendix A: CPIA Components A. Economic Management 1. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy: The quality of monetary/exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework. 2. Fiscal Policy: The quality of fiscal policy as regards stabilization (achieving macroeconomic policy objectives in conjunction with coherent monetary and exchange rate policies, smoothing business cycle fluctuations, accommodating shocks) and resource allocation (appropriate provisioning of public goods). 3. Debt Policy: Degree of appropriateness of the country’s debt management strategy for ensuring medium-term debt sustainability and minimizing budgetary risks. B. Structural Policies 4. Trade: Extent to which the policy framework fosters regional and global integration in goods and services, focusing on the trade policy regime (tariffs, nontariff barriers, and barriers to trade in services) and trade facilitation. 5. Financial Sector: Quality of policies and regulations that affect financial sector development on three dimensions: (a) financial stability; (b) the sector’s efficiency, depth, and resource mobilization strength; and (c) access to financial services. 6. Business Regulatory Environment: The extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private business in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. C. Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 7. Gender Equality: The extent to which policies, laws, and institutions (a) promote equal access for men and women to human capital development; (b) promote equal access for men and women to productive and economic resources; and (c) give men and women equal status and protection under the law. 8. Equity of Public Resource Use: The extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. 9. Building Human Resources: The quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education. 10. Social Protection and Labor: Policies promoting risk prevention by supporting savings and risk pooling through social insurance, protection against destitution through redistributive safety net programs, and promotion of human capital development and income generation, including labor market programs. 11. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability: The extent to which environmental policies and institutions foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution. D. Public Sector Management and Institutions 12. Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance: The extent to which economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced. 13. Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management: The extent to which there is (a) a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; (b) effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and (c) timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely audit of public accounts and effective arrangements for follow-up. 14. Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization: Assesses the overall pattern of revenue mobilization, not only the tax structure as it exists on paper, but revenues from all sources as they are actually collected. 15. Quality of Public Administration: The core administration defined as the civilian central government (and subnational governments, to the extent that their size or policy responsibilities are significant), excluding health and education personnel and police. 16. Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector: The extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. 92 Appendix B: Country Groups and Classification I. Country Groups Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Non-Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Fragile Non-fragile Fragile Non-fragile Burundi Benin Afghanistan Bangladesh Central African Republic Burkina Faso Djibouti Bhutan Chad Cabo Verde Haiti Cambodia Comoros Cameroon Kiribati Dominica Congo, Dem. Rep. Ethiopia Kosovo Grenada Congo, Rep. Ghana Marshall Islands Guyana Côte d’Ivoire Guinea Micronesia, Fed. Sts. Honduras Eritrea Kenya Myanmar Kyrgyz Republic Gambia, The Lesotho Papua New Guinea Lao PDR Guinea-Bissau Madagascar Solomon Islands Maldives Liberia Malawi Timor-Leste Moldova Mali Mauritania Tuvalu Mongolia Mozambique Niger Yemen, Rep. Nepal South Sudan Nigeria Nicaragua Somalia Rwanda Pakistan Sudan São Tomé and Príncipe Samoa Togo Senegal St. Lucia Zimbabwe Sierra Leone St. Vincent and Tanzania the Grenadines Uganda Tajikistan Zambia Tonga Uzbekistan Vanuatu Note: “Fragile situations” have either (a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or (b) the presence of a United Nations and/or regional peace-keeping or peace-building mission during the past three years. This list includes only IDA-eligible countries and non-member or inactive territories/countries without CPIA data. It excludes IBRD-only countries for which the CPIA scores are not currently disclosed. The analysis does not include the following fragile countries since they do not have CPIA data or are not IBRD countries: Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, and West Bank and Gaza. This country group classification is based on the FY19 Harmonized list of Fragile Situations of the World Bank Group. II. Country Classification in SSA by Resilience and Resource Abundance Resilient group of Resource-rich Non-resource-rich countries countries in SSA countries Burkina Faso Chad Benin Gambia, The São Tomé and Príncipe Côte d’Ivoire Congo, Dem. Rep. Burkina Faso Ghana Senegal Ethiopia Congo, Rep Burundi Guinea-Bissau Sudan Ghana Guinea. Cabo Verde Kenya Tanzania Guinea Liberia Cameroon Lesotho Togo Guinea-Bissau Mauritania Central African Madagascar Uganda Kenya Niger Republic Malawi Zimbabwe Mali Nigeria Comoros Mali Rwanda South Sudan Côte d’Ivoire Mauritius Senegal Sierra Leone Eritrea Mozambique Tanzania Zambia Ethiopia Rwanda Source: World Bank staff calculations based on the World Development Indicators database, Africa’s Pulse, April 2019. 93 Appendix C: Guide to CPIA The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) is a diagnostic tool that is intended to capture the quality of a country’s policies and institutional arrangements—that is, its focus is on the key elements that are within a country’s control, rather than on outcomes (such as growth rates) that are influenced by elements outside the country’s control. More specifically, the CPIA measures the extent to which a country’s policy and institutional framework supports sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and consequently the effective use of development assistance. The outcome of the exercise yields an overall score and scores for all of the 16 criteria that compose the CPIA. The CPIA tool was developed and first employed in the mid-1970s. Over the years, the World Bank has periodically updated and improved it to reflect the lessons of experience and the evolution of thinking about development. In June 2006, the World Bank publicly disclosed for the first time the numerical scores of its 2005 CPIA. The CPIA exercise covers country performance during a given calendar year with the results for the International Development Association (IDA) eligible countries disclosed in June of the following year. The CPIA has undergone periodic reviews to update and refine the content of the criteria. The most recent revision of the criteria took place a couple years ago and was applied to the 2016 CPIA exercise. The revisions were guided by the conclusions of an Independent Evaluation Group evaluation, relevant findings in the literature, and lessons learned in carrying out the annual CPIA exercise in the past few years. In undertaking the revisions, special attention was given to ensuring that the content of the revisions was commensurate with the availability of information and the ability to assess country performance, and that some degree of continuity was preserved in the criteria. The revisions have not resulted in significant changes in country scores. Among the revisions are the following: • In criterion 4 (Q4, Trade), trade policy and trade facilitation are now equally weighted; more emphasis is placed on the trade regime, not just imports; services are explicitly introduced; and the trade facilitation subcomponent is elaborated. • The coverage of social assistance programs, including coordination, reach, and targeting issues in Q10 (Social Protection and Labor), was strengthened. • Q15 (Quality of Public Administration) was revised to include a stronger focus on the core public administration and, when relevant, a more explicit treatment of subnational governments. • Q16 (Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector) was revised to include a new dimension to cover aspects of financial corruption that had not been treated consistently. Coverage of fiscal information is now more explicit, and capture and conflicts of interest as distinct forms of corruption are treated more consistently. CPIA scores help to determine IDA allocations—concessional lending and grants—to low-income countries. Details are available at: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA. 94 95 This report is produced by the Office of the Chief Economist for the Africa Region. www.worldbank.org/africa/cpia