In many cases, the definition of national priorities (as well as CAS objectives) is broad and so a strong degree of overlap is to be expected. Indeed, 93 of the 96 country programs were deemed to be moderately satisfactory or better in aligning program objectives with national priorities. In all of the three cases where country programs fell short—Uzbekistan (FY02-05), Armenia (FY02-04), and Sao Tome and Principe (FY01-05)—programs were designed in the early phase of the matrix era. In Uzbekistan, the program directly pursued goals that were different from those of the government. In the other two, the programs were deemed not to be appropriate for the partner’s development. In Armenia, there was limited attention to the impact of growth on jobs and inequality, an omission consistent with later concern by the Bank’s Board regarding the impact of the program on poverty. And in Sao Tome and Principe, the Bank’s strategy did not align itself adequately to the country’s development situation.
Ownership One-third of country programs—35 of the 96 that were rated—had moderately satisfactory or satisfactory country ownership, defined as including support from inside and outside of government, as well as at all levels of government where appropriate, as shown in Figure C.1. There was a large improvement in ownership over the period, with 55 percent of programs initiated between FY04 and FY08 rated moderately satisfactory or better, compared to 18 percent initiated between FY98 and FY03.
Figure C.1
Most Programs Had Weak Government Ownership from the Outset
50 Satisfactory ownership (34%)
45 Number of Programs
40
Unsatisfactory ownership (66%)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Broad consultation
Sustained govt commitment
Minor differences
Govt support Insufficient Weak govt weakened consultation support from outset
Category of Program
138
The Matrix System at Work