state-building in fragile states: an assessment toolkit
Post on 24-Feb-2016
39 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
State-Building in Fragile States:
An Assessment Toolkit
2
CONTEXT Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of
donors in FCS forward, BUT Challenges of operationalization and persisting weaknesses in donor
approaches to state-building: Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States:
◦ Overarching 'Guidance Note’◦ Interactive E-Tool (excel-based)◦ 'How To' Note on how to use the Tool◦ Set of 'State Building at a Glance' indicators, ◦ Working / background paper reviewing literature underpinning the
approach
3
Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States
Offers country and donor teams:◦ A common ‘language’ or framework for approaching/
understanding fundamental state-building issues◦ A structured and guided process for collectively an
consistently discussing and assessing state-building challenges and their implications for country programming
Toolkit CAN: ◦ Help teams arrive at a common understanding on state-
building challenges and implications for country programming◦ Help ‘surface’ some of the difficult state-building
challenges that often are passed over◦ Help identify areas for further in-depth investigation (via PEA
and other analytical instruments/ approaches) Toolkit CANNOT provide definitive answers (if you find X, then do Y)
4
Overview - Conceptual framework 1. Social and Political Context: Nature and Context of
Fragility2. 3 core dimensions/ characteristics of functioning
states and institutions: Authority, Capacity, Legitimacy (ACL)
3. 4 ‘domains’ where these dimensions play out: constitutive/survival domains (security, political/ government), and output/expected domains (economic, social service delivery)
4. A myriad of institutions that contribute to outcomes in the four domains
Each institution will have its own authority-capacity-legitimacy (ACL) challenges
5
THE ACL FRAMEWORK – CORE CONCEPTS
Effective Public
Authority
Authority (A): The ability of the state to
govern its territory effectively, reach all
citizens regardless of their location, maintain law and order and protect citizens
from predation and violence. It is the ability of the laws and rules of the state to trump all other
laws and rules.
Capacity (C): The ability of the state to deliver goods and
services, procure goods and services, design and implement policies, build infrastructure, collect
revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive environment for the private sector.
Legitimacy (L): Whether citizens feel the government has the right to govern –
and whether they trust the government. (Both
performance and process matter)
Macro-/Structural Level
Specific Institutions & O
rganizations
4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT
2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT
AUTHORITY (A)
CAPACITY (C)
LEGITIMACY (L)
SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMICSOC/ SERV DEL.
A C L
A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc.POL/ GVT . INSTIT.
Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavagesPolitical settlement, political system and social contract
7
Over view – State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)
Excel-based Tool guides teams step by step through the assessment process
Each step includes questions or ‘prompts’ to help teams:◦ Assess the ACL of the state or of key institutions at the
respective level and identify state-building needs based on this assessment
◦ Assess what the government, the Bank, and the international community are doing to address these needs
◦ Identify the implications of the assessment for the Bank’s portfolio in terms of risks, priorities and next steps
4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Analysis Practice
4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
3. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
2. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications
State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications Prioritization
Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implicationsPrioritization
Macro-/Structural Level
Specific Institutions & O
rganizations
2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT
AUTHORITY (A)
CAPACITY (C)
LEGITIMACY (L)
SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMICSOC/ SERV DEL.
A C L
A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc.POL/ GVT . INSTIT.
Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavagesPolitical settlement, political system and social contract
9
How to use the SBAT
Team-based assessment and planning tool workshop of 1 to 4 days (depending on version used)
Needs:◦ Team contact person + facilitator for planning,
conducting and following up on the workshop◦ Ideally: work in groups of max 5-6 people◦ Laptop(s) + Projector(s)
10
Purpose and Options for Customization
The SBAT is best used to inform the development of country strategies in FCS (ISNs or CASs), but it can be ‘customized’ to meet a variety of needs. E.g.: 1. Joint donor assessments. 2. Focus on a specific sector or domain. 3. Use for sub-national authorities. 4. Use with government and/ or civil society
representatives. 5. Use in other low- and middle-income countries.
11
Conclusion Not just ‘another’ analytical tool:
◦ Focuses more directly on the state and what the Bank and its partners can do to strengthen it
◦ Takes a systematic approach of linking different levels of assessment: From the macro-/ strategic level to individual institutions and organizations From analysis to strategic and operational implications
◦ Offers a conceptual framework or a ‘common language’ on state-building.
◦ Generates a common team-based experience of linking analysis to operational implications
◦ Can 'surface' many of the difficult issues and diverse viewpoints about state-building that often are left unnoticed
◦ Offers (some) suggestions for strategic and operational choices for supporting state-building
Structured guidance for systematic team discussion of state-building challenges and implications
The SBAT in detail
13
Step 1. Assess the Social and Political Context
To understand to nature and the causes of fragility1. Structural Causes – e.g. ethnic or religious divisions,
economic inequality2. Elite cleavages3. Social cleavages/ social cohesion4. Political Settlement/ Political System5. Social Contract/ Citizen-State Relations◦ Reflection of key drivers of fragility in the four domains of
governance◦ Key issues, risks and expected evolution over time
Sets the stage for considering the state and its institutions with their overall socio-political context
1414
TAB 1: POLITICAL & SOCIAL CONTEXT
OVERALL NATURE AND CAUSES OF STATE FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY
KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS" CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS
Structural causes of fragility
What is/ are the fundamental cause(s) of fragility (e.g. economic/ religious/
territorial disputes etc.)?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?
How 'severe' are these structural causes?
How do you expect these causes to evolve over time ?
Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option
Elite cleavages
Who are the key elite groups and what is their power basis? How do they bargain with each other? How credible are their
agreements; is there an 'elite pact'/ 'political settlement'? How are rents, power, resources etc. distributed?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?
How severe are elite cleavages? How do you expect these cleavages to evolve over time ?
Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option
Societal cleavages/ Social Cohesion
What/ who are the key social groups (e.g. ethnic religious etc.)? What is the
relationship between them/ how do they relate to each other? Are some groups sistematically excluded/ marginalized?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?
How severe are social cleavages? How do you expect these cleavages to evolve over time ?
Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option
'Political Settlement'/ Political System
How robust is the political settlement? (How) Is it institutionalized through the
political system? (How) does the political system mitigate or reinforce/ amplify
elite and social divisions?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?
How robust is the political settlement? How do you expect the [robustness of
] the political settlement - as embedded in the political system - to evolve over
time?
Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option
'Social Contract'/ Citizen-State Relations
What is the relationship between citizens and the state? (How) can citizens
articulate their expectations and (how) responsive is the state to these
expectations? How institutionalized is this relationship through the political
system?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?
How robust is the social contract? How do you expect citizen-state relations to evolve over time?
Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option
Conclusion/ Summary
Based on the above, what are the key issues arising from your consideration of
the nature and causes of fragility?What are the most likely key risks/
potential stresses? How severe is fragility ? How do you expect this fragility to evolve over time?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low Fragility? Select one option
Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing Fragility? Select one option
15
CAUSES & NATURE OF SECTORAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY KEY INSTITUTIONS KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS"
Security system/ institutions
How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the
security sector?
What are the key institutions "to watch" in the security sector - which ones are the
most important for state fragility or resilience? Do they have the capacity to
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could undermine institutional stability in this sector? How likely are they?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Political/ Gvt System/ Institutions
How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the
political/ government sector?
What are the key institutions "to watch" in the political/ gvt sector - which ones are the
most important for state fragility or resilience? Do they have the capacity to
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could undermine institutional stability in this sector? How likely are they?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Economic System/ Institutions
How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the
economic sector? What are the key institutions "to watch"? Do they have the capacity to mitigate these stresses or do
they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What are the key institutions "to watch" in the economic sector - which ones are the
most important for state fragility or resilience? Do they have the capacity to
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could undermine institutional stability in this sector? How likely are they?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3]
Service delivery system/ Institutions
How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the service delivery sector? What are the key institutions "to watch"? Do they have the capacity to mitigate these stresses or do
they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What are the key institutions "to watch" in the security sector - which ones are the
most important for state fragility or resilience? Do they have the capacity to
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they reflect/ exacerbate them?
What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could undermine institutional stability in this sector? How likely are they?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4]
16
Step 2. Strategic/ Overall Country-Level Assessment
To get an overall picture of the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy◦‘Flags’ issues for further assessment at the next
stages◦Can highlight some macro-level risks and
strategic implications for teams E.g. if the state has high legitimacy due to political
inclusion, but low capacity to deliver services that are increasingly demanded by the population, then ‘flag’ building capacity for service delivery as a key issue to keep in mind for the following steps.
17
TAB 2: OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]
High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low Fragility? Select one option
Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing Fragility?
Select one option
ANALYTICAL INPUTS
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT HIGH-LEVEL STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L]
STATE FRAGILITY/
RESILIENCEGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
CURRENT WB
PORTFOLIO
OTHER DONOR/
INTERNATIONAL
PORTFOLIO
RISKS NEXT STEPS
What analytical products are available/ planned/
needed for this assessment (e.g. PEAs,
CAFs/ CSAs etc)?
Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of
fragility, to what extent is the state able to govern its
territory effectively, reach all citizens regardless of their location, maintain law and order and protect citizens
from predation and violence? Do the laws and rules of the
state trump all other laws and rules?
Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of
fragility, to what extent is the state able to deliver goods
and services, procure goods and services, design and implement policies, build
infrastructure, collect revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive
environment for the private sector?
Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of fragility, to what extent do
citizens feel that the government has the right to govern? Do they trust the
government? Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues for state-
building?
How/ to what extent does the
gvt address these issues?
How/ to what extent does the
current WB portfolio
address these issues ?
How/ to what extent do the other donors'
and international partners'
portfolio(s) address these
issues?
What are the implications of
this assessment for (country)
risks idenitifed (e.g. in the
ORAF)?
What can your team do to address the
state-building issues identified
here? (eg: through WB
portfolio, partnerships
with other donors, dialogue
with the government,
etc)?
High/Medium/Low? Select one option
High/Medium/Low? Select one option
High/Medium/Low? Select one option
Rising/Stable/Falling? Select one option
Rising/Stable/Falling? Select one option
Rising/Stable/Falling? Select one option
Insert List Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment
Here
Insert Assessment
Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
18
Step 3. Domain Level Assessment ‘Disaggregating’ ACL in the four domains of
governance (security, political/ gvt., economic, and social/ service delivery) - Helps to:◦ See in which domain and dimension the state performs
better or worse Suggestions for indicators to help assess the state’s
authority, capacity and legitimacy in each domain◦ get a more disaggregated picture of ‘meso-level’
challenges and implications for country programming◦ assign priorities to each domain (if possible/ desired)◦ Identify sector-level risks and priorities
Some suggestions for strategic/ operational options to consider in each domain + further literature included in toolbox
19
TAB 3: STATE DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet
To see indicators suggested for each cell of the State-Building Assessment below, please see FCS, State-building at a Glance Sheet or refer to to Indicators Spreadsheet in Toolkit Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summar
y Sheet
Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational Suggestions & Sources
ANALYTICAL INPUTS
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A]CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE
GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
CURRENT WB PORTFOLIO
OTHER DONOR/ INT'NATIONAL
PORTFOLIORISKS NEXT STEPS
Constitutive Domai
ns/ Surviv
al Functi
ons
SECURITY
What analytical products are
available/ planned/ needed for this
assessment (e.g. PEA, CSA, CFA)?
Does the state's monopoly of force extend over the
entire territory/ all people living within its borders?
Does the state have a monopoly of force
to the extent that there is limited crime or armed
conflict?
Is the way in which the state delivers security
perceived as legitimate? Is the state perceived as
the only legitimate source of security?
Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues
for state-building in the security
domain?
How/ to what extent does
the gvt address these
issues?
How/ to what extent does the
current WB portfolio
address these issues ?
How/ to what extent do the other donors'
and international
partners' portfolio(s)
address these issues?
What are the implications of
this assessment
for (country or sector) risks
idenitifed (e.g. in the ORAF)?
What are the next steps for your team to strengthen this domain (eg: through WB portfolio, partnerships
with other donors etc)?
Medium Low Medium
Rising Rising Falling 1st priority Addresses partially Does not address Addresses
partially High risk 2nd priority
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab
4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab
4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
POLITICAL/
GOVERNMENT
What analytical products are available
for this assessment (e.g. PE analyses,
previous CAS, ISN, etc)?
Are people loyal to the state over other groups? Is this loyalty based on a shared sense of national identity? Do people recognize the
authority of the government currently in power?
How effective are core government
systems (executive/ the legislative or
similar/ the judiciary) at making
and enforcing decisions?
Is the way government makes and enforces
decisions perceived as legitimate?
Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues for state-building?
How/ to what extent does
the gvt address these
issues?
How/ to what extent does the
current WB portfolio
address these issues ?
How/ to what extent do the other donors'
and international
partners' portfolio(s)
address these issues?
What are the implications of
this assessment
for (country or sector) risks
idenitifed (e.g. in the ORAF)?
What are the next steps for your team to strengthen this domain (eg: through WB portfolio, partnerships
with other donors etc)?Low Low Medium
Rising Rising Stable 2nd priority Addresses partially
Addresses partially
Addresses to a large degree Substantial risk 1st priority
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab
4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab
4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
20
Step 4. INSTITUTIONAL assessment
List of ‘typical’ institutions for each domain: ◦ Prompts to determine ACL of the listed institutions◦ Option to add country-specific institutions that are not listed
generic questions that can be applied/ adapted to any institution
Helps to:◦ Identify key institutions and their strengths and weaknesses in
terms of ACL◦ assign priorities and develop more fine-grained, ‘micro-
level’ operational options/ implications for country programming
Some general suggestions on strengthening ACL of institutions ◦ e.g. align de jure and de facto authority, build capacity of
organizations not just individuals etc.
21
TAB 4.2 POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT: INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: SECTOR-LEVEL FRAGILITY Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summary Sheet
KEY ISSUES KEY INSTITUTIONS KEY RISKS Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational Suggestions & Sources
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L]
INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY/RESI
LIENCEGOVERNMENT
PRIORITIESCURRENT WB PORTFOLIO
OTHER DONOR PORTFOLIO RISKS NEXT STEPS
Political/ Gvt. Domain
Low Low Medium2nd priority Addresses
partiallyAddresses
partiallyAddresses to a
large degree Substantial risk 1st priorityRising Rising Stable
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab
4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Executive Institutions - Public Financial
Management
How much de jure and de facto authority do PFM institutions
have? How far does this authority extend? What
percentage of national resource flows do such institutions
control?
How much capacity do PFM institutions have to fulfill
(basic) PFM functions? Where are the most severe capacity
constraints (e.g. lack of qualified staff, lack of
organizational structures, lack of authorizing legislation, lack
of/ misaligned incentives)?
How much trust do citizens/ various social groups/ key elites have in the state about the level
and distribution of public expenditures and the sources/ composition of revenues? Do people have trust in the most
visible revenue collection, budget preparation and execution
institutions?
Based on this assessment, what are the key issues for strenghtening
this/ these institution(s)?
How/ to what extent does the
government address these
issues?
How/ to what extent does the
current WB portfolio address these issues ?
How/ to what extent do the
other donors' and international
partners' portfolio(s)
address these issues?
What are the implications of
this assessment for (esp.
implementing agency) risks
idenitifed (e.g. in the ORAF)?
What are the next steps/ specific
actions for your team to
strengthen this institution?
Medium High Low
Stable Falling Rising 1st priority Addresses partially
Addresses to a large degree Does not address Substantial risk 1st priority
Insert Relevant Institutions Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
Here
Civil Service/General Public Administration
Institutions
How far does the civil service/ public administration extend over the entire territory? How much authority does it have?
How much capacity does the civil service have in terms of
human and financial resources, organizational
structures, legislative framework, incentive structure
etc. to fulfill its functions?
How much trust do citizens have in the civil service/ public
servants/ public administration? Is the lack of trust due to an inability to make and enforce decisions, corruption, lack of
representation/ inclusion etc.?
Based on this assessment, what are the key issues for strenghtening
this/ these institution(s)?
How/ to what extent does the
government address these
issues?
How/ to what extent does the
current WB portfolio address these issues ?
How/ to what extent do the
other donors' and international
partners' portfolio(s)
address these issues?
What are the implications of
this assessment for (esp.
implementing agency) risks
idenitifed (e.g. in the ORAF)?
What are the next steps/ specific
actions for your team to
strengthen this institution?
Low Medium High
Rising Rising Falling 2nd priority Does not address Addresses to a large degree
Addresses partially Low risk 1st priority
Insert Relevant Institutions Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
HereInsert Assessment
Here
22
Step 5: Country Snapshot and Summary
To get an overall – integrated – picture of the assessment and the implications◦Snapshot: all color-based ratings◦Summary: text for key issues for state stability
and resilience and next steps for the BankReview:
◦Quick ‘glimpse’ of key challenges, priorities, next steps etc.
◦Ensure consistency – revisit assessments where necessary
TAB 5.1 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: NATURE AND CAUSES OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L]
Medium Low High
Falling Rising Falling
SECURITY DOMAIN AND INSTITUTIONS
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L]
STATE FRAGILITY/RESILIENC
EGOVERNMENT
PRIORITIESCURRENT WB PORTFOLIO
OTHER DONOR/ INT'NATIONAL PORTFOLIO
RISKS NEXT STEPS
Medium Low Medium1st priority Addresses partially Does not address Addresses partially High risk 2nd priority
Rising Rising Falling
Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police, etc) Medium Medium Low
1st priority Addresses partially N/A Addresses partially High risk N/AMilitary Stable Rising Falling
Justice & Rule of Law Institutions Low Medium Low
1st priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Addresses partially Substantial risk 1st priority
Judiciary Rising Stable Rising
Management and Oversight Bodies Low Low Low
2nd priority Does not address N/A Does not address High risk N/A
Ntl Security Council Stable Rising Stable
Security-related PFM Institutions Low Medium Low
3rd priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Does not address Medium risk 2nd priority
MoF Rising Stable Rising
Local authorities; Civil Society Institions Low Low Low
4th priority Does not address Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Medium risk 3rd priority
HR NGOs Stable Rising Stable
Other Relevant Institutions Medium Low High3rd priority Addresses to a large degree N/A Does not address Low risk N/A
Police Rising Stable Falling
24
TAB 5.2 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS
Medium Low HighInsert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here
Falling Rising Falling
STATE DOMAIN LEVEL
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
STATE DOMAIN LEVELAUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS
[C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS
RECOMMENDED PRIORITY LEVEL FOR
NEXT STEPS
SECURITYMedium Low Medium
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] High risk Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1] 2nd priority SECURITYRising Rising Falling
POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT
Low Low MediumInsert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2] Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] 1st priority POLITICAL/
GOVERNMENT Rising Rising Stable
ECONOMIC Medium Low Medium
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.3] 3rd priority ECONOMIC Stable Rising Rising
SOCIAL/SERVICE DELIVERY
Medium Low StableInsert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.4] Low risk Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] 2nd priority
SOCIAL/SERVICE
DELIVERY Rising Rising Stable
INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
INSTITUTIONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY LEVEL FOR NEXT STEPS
SECURITY INSTITUTIONS
Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police, etc) Medium Medium Low
Insert Assessment Here High risk Insert Assessment Here N/A
Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police,
etc)
Military Stable Rising Falling Insert Assessment Here
Justice & Rule of Law Institutions Low Medium Low
Insert Assessment Here Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here 1st priority
Justice & Rule of Law
Institutions
Judiciary Rising Stable Rising Insert Assessment Here
top related