Syndicate content

Public Sector and Governance

The Governance Gap: Can we bridge it?

Deborah Wetzel's picture
Graphic by Nicholas Nam/World Bank

If you’re like me, just watching TV or picking up the paper is a constant reminder of issues related to “governance,” and that’s not just because it’s also my job.
People are not happy with the state of their governments these days. Distrust is running high; fiscal pressures are mounting; service delivery doesn’t reach the poorest people; corruption scandals abound and conflict seems on the rise.
The World Bank’s latest country surveys that polled around 9,000 opinion leaders in 40 of our client countries says that public sector governance has risen to the top of countries’ policy priorities. The 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer shows that more than half of the global population expresses distrust in government institutions.

5 priorities to boost Afghanistan’s development

Annette Dixon's picture
Photo credit: Rumi Consultancy / World Bank

Today I joined leaders and representatives from 70 countries and 20 international organizations and agencies at the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan. Together with its development partners, the World Bank Group pledged its continued support to the Afghan people and outlined a course of action to help all Afghans realize their dream of living in peace and prosperity.
Afghanistan has come a long way since 2001 and has made much progress under extremely challenging circumstances: life expectancy has increased from 44 to 60 years, maternal mortality has decreased by more than three quarters and, from almost none in 2001, the country now counts 18 million mobile phone subscribers.
Yet, enormous challenges remain as nearly 40 percent of Afghans live in poverty and almost 70 percent of the population is illiterate. This is made worse by growing insecurity and the return of 5.8 million refugees and 1.2 million internally displaced people. Much also remains to create jobs for the nearly 400,000 people entering the labor market each year.
To that end, here are five priorities we need to address to ensure a more prosperous and more secure future for all Afghans:

To reinvigorate Europe, we need more integration… of services

Doerte Doemeland's picture

To reinvigorate growth in Europe, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi called for more common projects in the European Union (EU). And he emphasized that these efforts need to meet a set of minimum bars: they should “…focus on those actions that deliver tangible and immediately recognisable results… [they] should complement the actions of governments; they should be clearly linked to people’s immediate concerns; they should unequivocally concern matters of European or global significance.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Five actions governments can take now to encourage private investment in infrastructure

Laurence Carter's picture

Of the 56 poorest countries, over half had no private investment in infrastructure in the past five years. And in 2015, only 14 energy, transport and water projects involving private investment were concluded in that whole group of 56 countries—with all of them occurring in just eight of the countries. In the past five years, only one country – Bangladesh – has seen private investment in infrastructure each year. Given that well-structured private infrastructure projects can bring a useful infusion of management (and sometimes money) to help provide better quality and access to infrastructure services, this seems like a missed opportunity. Here are five suggestions for actions that governments can take immediately to improve their chances of attracting good quality private management and financing for some infrastructure services.

Measure it to improve it: How benchmarking government capability for PPPs can help improve infrastructure delivery

Clive Harris's picture

It’s widely acknowledged that how well governments prepare, procure and implement public-private partnership (PPP) projects is important both in bringing in private finance and/or expertise and ensuring these projects deliver value-for-money.
However, up until now there has been no systematic data to measure those capabilities in governments. This has changed with the release of the World Bank Group’s Benchmarking PPP Procurement 2017, which collects and presents comparable and actionable data on PPP procurement on a large scale by providing an assessment of the regulatory frameworks that govern PPP procurement across 82 economies. It presents an analysis of practices in four areas: preparation, procurement, contract management of PPPs, and management of unsolicited proposals (USPs). Using a highway transport project as a case study to ensure cross-comparability, it analyzes the national regulatory frameworks and presents a picture of the procurement landscape at the end of March 2016 by scoring each of the four areas.  

Understand the differences, act on the commonalities in a globalized economy: How can Public-Private Dialogue be of help?

Steve Utterwulghe's picture

The Mongolian government’s economic advisors. Photo by Steve Utterwulghe

Misunderstanding, distrust, lack of genuine consultation. These are some of the words that I hear the most from various public and private stakeholders during my regular missions to developing countries.

From Bamako to Ulan Bator, where I am writing this post, the relentless echo of grievances points to the fact that the government doesn’t understand – or want to listen to – the private sector, and therefore doesn’t trust it. And likewise, the private sector sees public authorities as often incompetent, corrupt and an impediment to competitiveness and wealth creation.

While generalizing is a dubious exercise, the similarity and recurrence of complaints across the globe warrants deeper digging.

The issue of trust in policymaking is a complex field of study. The origin of mistrust of the private sector by the government in many developing countries is embedded in the socio-political culture and economic history of the state.
That being said, it is now rare to find a government that categorically denies the contribution of the private sector to the economic development of a nation. About 90 percent of the jobs are created by the private sector in the developing world, and about 50 percent of those are created by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Furthermore, as José Juan Ruiz from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has written, “Policymakers realize that they need to access the deep knowledge held by the private sector in order to learn about market failure and formulate the right policies to address them.”

On the other hand, the private sector wants a stable and transparent regulatory environment in which to operate. It doesn’t want more regulations, but better regulations that will protect its investments. For that, it needs the government to listen and act in a way that will create an enabling business environment. Building trust is hard work.

Differences between public and private stakeholders certainly exist, but so do commonalities. It never takes long for parties to acknowledge that there is a clear common ground to strive for: sustainable economic development that should lead to inclusive growth. That, in turn, will spur job creation and revenue collection for the state. That’s an irrefutable win-win scenario.

Maximize analytical use of Public Sector Debt Statistics: D1-D4 matrix approach

Rubena Sukaj's picture

The Financial Data Team of the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) is pleased to announce the launch of our Online Quarterly Bulletin’s second edition, an e-newsletter spotlighting debt statistics news, trends, and events. The current issue features the following:

  • Organizing Public Sector Debt (QPSD) statistics to maximize their analytical use and international comparability
  • Bond Issuance by low- and middle-income countries in 2015
  • External debt trends for high-income countries in 20105
  • Debt statistics-related event summaries

One highlight in this edition is the introduction of the D1-D4 matrix, a cascading approach used to present the QPSD data. The primary aim of the QPSD initiative is to institute a standardized measure for each dimension of public sector debt. The QPSD database displays country data for the same set of debt instruments such as 1. debt securities, 2. loans, 3. currency and deposits, 4. Special Drawing Rights, 5. Other accounts payable, and 6. insurance, pensions, and standardized guarantee schemes for the following institutional sectors of the economy: 1) general government, (2) central government, (3) budgetary central government, (4) non-financial public corporations (5) financial public corporations, and (6) the total consolidated public sector debt.

Tunisia: Do local governments hold the key to a new social contract?

Christine Petré's picture

It’s a simple drain, made of tiles, running down the middle of the street. There is nothing especially dramatic about the drain, but looks can be deceiving. It is in fact a sign of the changing relationship between local municipalities in Tunisia and their residents.

Understanding institutional investors for infrastructure – The collaborative model

Rajiv Sharma's picture

One of the key objectives for our research program at the Stanford Global Projects Center is to understand how the largest sources of capital in the world can be channeled into critical infrastructure and development projects most in need of it. In particular, we focus on long-term institutional investors (pension funds and sovereign wealth funds) and private development firms at one end of the spectrum, and government procurement agencies and departments at the other. We are essentially trying to assist in overcoming a number of inefficiencies that seem to be apparent in linking the original source of capital to projects on the ground. In this blog post, we would like to highlight some of the latest trends and issues confronting the institutional investor space; in subsequent blogs, we will showcase some of the work we have done at the government procurement level to facilitate investment.

Opening markets: Mexico uncovers and slashes local barriers to competition

Marialisa Motta's picture

In the state of Chiapas, Mexico — where nearly 1 million people live in moderate to extreme poverty — bus fares have been too high, and the availability of buses has been limited. Over four years, consumers on a single route have paid $2.5 million more than necessary. Tortillas in states across Mexico are more expensive than they need to be. In one state, firms overcharge for road construction by an estimated 15 percent, making it difficult to provide the high-quality transport services for cargo and construction materials that are necessary to build a logistics hub to diversify the state economy beyond petroleum. Another state has a very dynamic economy, hosting a greater density of industrial parks than comparable states. Given the positive spillover effects — industrial activity boosting local employment, demand, and purchasing power — the state expected growth in retail markets. Yet, stores have not been opening. Yet another state relies on tourism to generate business opportunities and jobs, including for poor people. However, until recently, tourists found that commercial establishments in the state’s primary municipality closed in the evenings and at night, often preventing them from going shopping.
What do these examples have in common? Local barriers to competition.

In the past few years, the Mexican Federal Competition Authority (COFECE) and Better Regulation Authority (COFEMER), internationally recognized institutions, as well as the World Bank Group, have pointed out that subnational regulations restrict competition in local markets. In many municipalities in Mexico, regulations and government interventions allow market incumbents to deny entry to new firms, to coordinate prices, to impose minimum distances between outlets, or to grant incumbents exclusive rights to artificially protect their dominant position. In total, a lack of vigorous marketplace competition costs the Mexican economy about one percentage point of GDP growth each year – a shortfall that affects the country’s poorest households by an estimated 20 percent more than its richest households. Most countries, however, have never systematically scrutinized local barriers to competition.

To address such issues effectively, competition policy experts from the World Bank Group’s Trade & Competitiveness Global Practice have developed an innovative tool – the Subnational Market Assessment of Competition (SMAC) – to systematically identify, prioritize and support the removal of local barriers to competition. (The SMAC is built from the World Bank Group Markets and Competition Policy Assessment Tool, or MCPAT.) The World Bank Group designed the SMAC to prioritize the reform of the rules and practices that most severely prevent healthy competition in the primary sectors for each state’s economic development.