The GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues

Stephen Lister

WB-ODI SeminarLondon, 18 July 2006

London, 18 July 2006 GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues 2

Topics

1. Scope of evaluation

2. Principal findings

3. Implications for choice of modality

4. Challenges

London, 18 July 2006 GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues 3

Scope of evaluation

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total %Total Partnership GBS disbursements (USDm)

Burkina Faso 82 109 144 165 500 13%

Malawi 58 48 0 14 28 148 4%

Mozambique 30 88 101 154 239 611 16%

Nicaragua 6 8 63 77 2%

Rwanda 14 37 33 34 130 248 6%

Uganda 66 39 176 311 369 405 409 1,775 45%

Vietnam 150 123 140 157 570 15%

Total - - - - 66 39 277 717 741 899 1,191 3,930 100%

percent of sample 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 7% 18% 19% 23% 30% 100%

illustrative sample of countries focus on partnership GBS identified by country-level inventories large volume, but recent, uneven distribution of PGBS useful contrasts in “penetration”

PGBS flows

London, 18 July 2006 GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues 4

Principal findings Overall positive assessment in 5 of 7 countries:

Relevant response to problems in aid effectiveness. Efficient, effective and sustainable way of supporting

national poverty reduction strategies. Positive systemic effects on capacity by providing

discretionary funds to national budget system. Spill-over effects enhance quality of aid as a whole. Initial effects on poverty mainly through expanding

public services. Ultimate effects will depend on the quality of the national poverty reduction strategy.

Capacity for learning suggests instrument can become more effective over time.

Did not find unintended effects or side-effects that would outweigh benefits.

London, 18 July 2006 GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues 5

Implications for choice of modality Broad relevance of findings / spectrum of instruments

Overlap between “general” and “sector” budget support Findings are more widely relevant to programme-based

approaches which share PGBS design principles. Interactions between aid modalities:

GBS effects include: Broad influence on harmonisation and alignment. Increased policy coherence across sectors. GBS flexibility improves expenditure efficiency across all funding

sources. General benefit of PFM strengthening.

Complementarity between PGBS and other instruments (e.g. on cross-cutting issues, capacity building, corruption).

GBS benefits (e.g. on efficiency and t-costs) are diminished when off-budget modalities persist.

Need more systematic consideration of aid portfolios at country, donor and sector levels.

London, 18 July 2006 GBS Evaluation: Key Findings and Issues 6

Challenges

Balance between autonomy and intrusion resolving conditionality conundrum

More attention to long term predictability Develop genuinely long-term instruments Review design to minimise political risk, e.g.

realistic expectations better explanation mechanics of design

Be pragmatic, not purist.