Publication: Country Partnership Framework for the People's Republic of China for the Period FY2020-2025
Loading...
Date
2019-11-11
ISSN
Published
2019-11-11
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
Following four decades of high growth and poverty reduction, China has entered a new stage of development. Governance and institutional reforms are at the core of addressing China’s remaining development challenges. The China-World Bank Group (WBG) relationship, which will complete 40 years in 2020, is also entering a new phase. To implement this approach, new WBG financing will be subject to selectivity criteria, and IBRD financing will gradually decline. IFC will apply a rigorous additionality assessment to its program. This Country Partnership Framework will focus on three areas of engagement: advancing market and fiscal reforms; promoting greener growth; and sharing the benefits of growth. Cooperating on global knowledge and development is a cross-cutting theme.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“World Bank Group. 2019. Country Partnership Framework for the People's Republic of China for the Period FY2020-2025. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33048 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Period 2020-2025(World Bank, Kazakhstan, 2019-11-12)Past economic success notwithstanding, this Country Partnership Framework (CPF) comes at a time when Kazakhstan faces growing challenges. Institutional and governance reforms have been identified by the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) as the main constraint to achieving Kazakhstan's development goals. This CPF incorporates shifts in the World Bank Group (WBG) program that are intended to directly support Kazakhstan's development objectives and assist it in IBRD graduation. The CPF will also involve a high degree of selectivity to ensure that its programming is consistent with the WBG's value proposition to upper-middle-income countries as well as the IBRD graduation policy.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Period FY20-25(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2019-11-12)2019 was a year of political transition and conditions are in place for continuing stability in the country. Economic and financial crises in 2008 and 2014–16 have shown Kazakhstan’s vulnerability to external shocks and altered its very strong growth path. This Country Partnership Framework (CPF) comes at a time when Kazakhstan faces growing challenges. Institutional and governance reforms have been identified by the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) as the main constraint to achieving Kazakhstan’s development goals. This CPF incorporates shifts in the World Bank Group (WBG) program that are intended to directly support Kazakhstan’s development objectives and assist it in IBRD graduation.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Croatia for the Period of FY19-FY24(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2019-04-10)Croatia is a small, open economy and the latest entrant to the European Union. After being severely affected by the global financial crisis, Croatia’s economy is recovering, with growth averaging around three percent over the last four years. The over-arching objective of the WBG Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is to play a catalytic role in supporting institutional improvements needed for a sustainable trajectory towards EU convergence and eventual IBRD graduation. This CPF would support interventions to address Croatia’s climate vulnerabilities and protect its natural environment. This would be achieved primarily through ongoing and prospective advisory services, but also through potential WBG investments, including from IFC, and potentially from MIGA guarantees. The CPF will cover a five-year period (FY19-24) with one Progress and Learning Review (PLR). This approach includes a relatively narrow results framework that builds primarily on the ongoing portfolio and the nature of RAS-financed engagements. The PLR would provide an update on key areas of institutional weakness, including to measure progress against EU peers where benchmarks are available. While the WBG may contribute only modestly to these outcomes, it expects to play a catalytic role, and monitoring outcome indicators which are comparable across the EU will be particularly important to track progress in the areas on the critical path to accelerate convergence.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Guatemala for the Period FY17-20(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2016-10-17)Guatemala is at an historic juncture, following a political and institutional crisis in 2015, a newly elected government is starting to take on deep-rooted development problems. The crisis was triggered by the uncovering of a corruption scheme that permeated the tax administration superintendence (SAT) and the highest political levels. The country has enormous potential to generate growth and prosperity for its population; yet growth remains low, poverty and inequality persistently high, and high rates of childhood stunting threaten Guatemala’s ability to reach its full development potential. This glaring juxtaposition highlights the existence of two Guatemala’s, with large gaps in both social and economic outcomes. In this context, the World Bank Group’s (WBG) new country partnership framework (CPF) seeks to support Guatemala in fostering inclusion of vulnerable groups, and addressing bottlenecks to sustainable growth.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Panama for the Period FY15-FY21(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-03-02)Panama's economic growth has been at the top of the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region in recent years. The country s rapid growth has been largely pro-poor and translated into significant poverty reduction. The new Administration is well placed to tackle these challenges, with its commitment to maintaining an open and diversified economy and redressing social imbalances. Looking ahead, the country s main challenges are to maintain the current growth performance and ensure that its benefits are extended to all. The World Bank Group s (WBG) new Country Partnership Framework (CPF) seeks to support Panama s continued high growth, while ensuring inclusion and opportunities for marginalized groups, and bolstering resilience and sustainability. These themes are highlighted as priorities in the Government s 2014-2019 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) and in the WBG s Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD). The CPF seeks to maximize over a six-year period, the comparative advantages of the WBG, through packages of innovative public and private financing options based on cutting edge global knowledge and experience.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Breaking the Conflict Trap : Civil War and Development Policy(Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003)Most wars are now civil wars. Even though international wars attract enormous global attention, they have become infrequent and brief. Civil wars usually attract less attention, but they have become increasingly common and typically go on for years. This report argues that civil war is now an important issue for development. War retards development, but conversely, development retards war. This double causation gives rise to virtuous and vicious circles. Where development succeeds, countries become progressively safer from violent conflict, making subsequent development easier. Where development fails, countries are at high risk of becoming caught in a conflict trap in which war wrecks the economy and increases the risk of further war. The global incidence of civil war is high because the international community has done little to avert it. Inertia is rooted in two beliefs: that we can safely 'let them fight it out among themselves' and that 'nothing can be done' because civil war is driven by ancestral ethnic and religious hatreds. The purpose of this report is to challenge these beliefs.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.