PROGRAM-FOR-RESULTS (PforR) FINANCING

Group 3Shimul Sen

Akwasi AcheampongPrachi Jha

Eric Ologi JumaJan Michael De Leon

Manace Castory Nkuli

Photo Credits to World Bank

Key Descriptive Points Name of the Policy Document:

A NEW INSTRUMENT TO ADVANCE DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS: PROGRAM-FOR-RESULTS FINANCING

Name and Level:International Organization, World Bank (WB)

Date of Policy and Period of Validity:29 December 2011

Area Level Concerned:Global

Sectoral or Inter-sectoral and Subject Covered:Inter-sectoral Financing

Key Descriptive Points Status:

Approved in January 2012As of Nov 2015, there are 32 approved PforR operations totalling 6.2 B of WB financing and supporting $24.2 B of government programs

Ownership and Commitment:WB and Borrower Country

Key Goal and Objectives:To provide a lending instrument for programs not covered by IL and DPL, which are for projects and policies, respectively

Key Instruments Proposed for Implementation:Financial, Program-for-Results

PforR Innovation

PforR Complements WB Lending Instruments

Development Policy

Lending (DPL)

InvestmentLending (IL)

PforR is Inter-sectoral

PforR is Inter-sectoral

PforR involves the following steps:

Strong focus on implementation support and achievement of results

Identification of opportunities for building capacity and enhancing system performance

Assessment of the program in terms of technical, fiduciary and social and environmental impacts

Identification of key results and Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLI)

Definition of the Program supported by the operation

Identification of Government program

Criteria Matrix

Criteria RatingOwnership and Commitments

3/5

Clarity and Transparency 4/5Focus 5/5Integration 3/5Implementability 4/5

Ownership and Commitments (3/5) Policy has gone through two phases of

discussion and approval The stakeholders and their respective tasks

are specified in the draft bank procedure However, it may not represent public interest

as only top officials are present in the discussions

Clarity and Transparency (4/5)

Made available in 5 different languages to 148 countries, including 34 client countries

Well-conceptualized with innovations on results-based disbursement, environmental impact assessment, risk management, procurement assessment, among others

Focus (5/5) Provides lending instrument to program

support which are not yet covered by IL and DPL

Bridges the gap between project and policy financing

Responsive to changing development needs and demand from borrowing countries

Integration (3/5) Horizontal integration with IL and DPL Covers all broad lending demands, i.e.,

Projects, Policies and Programs However, no visible vertical integration and

linkages, effects may not trickle down

IPProjects

DPLPolicies

PforRProgram

s

Implementability (4/5)

Linked with programme action project and focuses on institutional capacity building to ensure the achievement and sustainability of the expected results

No legal changes necessary, already in place M&E will be carried out by implementing

institution as well as its enhancement However, no budget allocation, will be taken

from overall country/regional budget

Initial Conclusion

The strength of policy rests on bridging the gap of financing between IL and DPL, which will now cover most lending demands

Weakness lies in the vertical integration and public representation as approved priority programmes may not be prevailing issues in developing countries

New Perspectives for Urban Development

A Strategic Approach

Group 4: Beverly Akomea Bonsu, Hanna Pintusava, Rupinder Kaur, Josephine

Atieno Omwanda, Janice Gascon Utanes, Regina Limbumba

CONSULTATIVE GUIDELINES FOR SUSTAINABLE

URBAN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Key Descriptive Points

Body: European Commission, regional level

Date of policy, period of validity: December 2011, indefinite period of validity

Supra-national level

Key Descriptive Points

Inter-sectoral Subjects covered: transport, water supply and sanitation, waste management, health planning, natural resource management, business and employment, housing and land

Status: Policy instrument (guideline)

Ownership and commitment: –

Key Descriptive Points

Key goals and objectives: to provide a framework for effective

support for sustainable urban development

to create sectoral projects in urban areas improving the overall performance and impact in developing countries

Key instruments for implementation poverty eradication, decentralization, regulatory frame work, institutional urban management and institutions and physical planning

Additional Proposed Criteria Policy

PrinciplesAre the policy principles clearly stated?Score: 5 out of 5

SUSTAINABILITY

STRATEGY

Good Governance

Good Urban

Management

Sensitive ApproachSignificant ApproachSensible Approach

Synergistic Approach

Supported Approach

Environmental

EconomicSocial

THE SEVEN ʻSʼSustainability is achieved through a Strategy of good governance and good urban management. This approach needs to be Supported, Sensitive, Significant, Sensible and Synergistic.

MatrixOwnership and commitment 3GOOD consultation, represents public interest and clear stakeholders' roles But; NO evidence on approval, support and acceptanceClarity and transparency 5Is it clear, well-conceptualized, well structured, well written with accessible languageBut NO clear and verifiable targetFocus 5Clearly focused in defined strategic issues emphasizing on sustainable developmentHas clear goals and objectives

Matrix

Integration 4Has well ESTABLISHED Horizontal Integration of cross-cutting issues with clear potential advantagesBut LOOSE Vertical Integration with unclear establishment of inter-governmental linkagesImplementability 2Implementation is discussed, yes;But has a faint or dim implementation framework, tools and instruments and with no budget at all

Matrix: weak and strong points

Weak points

• hardly verifiable targets• uncertainty in

implementability: no budget, no legal changes in place, as well as institutional changes and/or new relationships, programme to support their introduction of new routine, no established evaluation is the guidelines are being observed

Strong points• clear and transparent

(clear and well-conceptualized, well written, well structured, accessible language)

• focused on defined strategic issues

• clear potential advantages of an integrated approach

• clearly stated policy principles

Comparative matrixProgram for

Results FinancingConsultative

Guidelines

Ownership and

Commitments

Clarity and Transparency

Focus

Integration

Implementability

3

3

5

4

4

3

5

5

2

4

Comparative matrix

financial policy instrument urban policy instrument

has owner – World Bank and borrowing country

no ownership and commitment

no additional budget allocation

(will be taken from overall country/regional

budget)

no clear target and budget

in the process of implementation draft framework

no evaluation and monitoring mechanism

measured and evaluated on the

national level

Program for Results

Financing Consultative

Guidelines

Lessons learnt: What makes a good policy?

• addressing an issue

• having a clear and measurable target

• well-defined framework for implementation

• clarity and transparency as written

• clear focus

Program for Results Financing

Consultative Guidelines

Relevance of the readings

Cochrane, A; 2007. Understanding Urban Policy: A critical approach

• Urban policy should correctly identify issues before intervention - the policy document clearly identified the urban issues it addresses

• Urban policy should have area or territorial focus - the policy document gives general  guidelines urban development but leaves it open to be implemented according to situations per country or city

Relevance of the readings

Tomlinson, R. et al., 2010. The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries

When gaining knowledge from Google one should consider including alternative perspectives and policy options and not limit research only by recognized institutions, since there might be alternative policies deserving attention on the lower search results positions, as well as alternative sources of information.

Relevance of the readings

Box, R.,2007. “Re-describing the public interest”. The Social Science Journal 44, Elseiver.

The reading presented different definition of “public interest” (aggregate, substantive and as a process) but the redescribed definition that allows flexibility, adaptability and offers relevance in decision making helped as identify if the case really represents public interest, and based on this we strongly believed that widely acceptable values like equity, democracy, liberty, efficiency, security are met.

THANK YOU!