Publication: Country Partnership Framework for the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Period FY21-FY25
Loading...
Date
2020-11-16
ISSN
Published
2020-11-16
Editor(s)
Abstract
To provide economic opportunities for its growing population, Nigeria needs to unlock private investment and job creation, and further the structural transformation and diversification of its economy. The low levels of human capital and the slow progress on diversification reflect and also contribute to the low levels and quality of public expenditures. The strategic objective of this Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is to support Nigeria to achieve progress on poverty reduction by promoting faster, more inclusive, and sustainable growth. Nigeria’s development agenda and development financing needs are vast, creating considerable excess demand for our support. Given Nigeria’s potential but also the critical challenges that it needs to address to realize that potential, the CPF proposes an ambitious engagement while recognizing the associated risks.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“World Bank; International Finance Corporation; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 2020. Country Partnership Framework for the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Period FY21-FY25. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/35098 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 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for the Period FY18-FY22(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017-05-22)Ethiopia has achieved substantial progress in economic, social, and human development over the past decade. The country partnership framework (CPF) draws on the findings of the World Bank Group (WBG’s) 2016 systematic country diagnostic (SCD) for Ethiopia, which identified eight binding constraints to ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity, along with two overarching challenges: the need for a sustainable financing model for growth, and inadequate feedback mechanisms to facilitate citizen engagement and government account- ability. This CPF succeeds the Ethiopia FY13-FY16 country partnership strategy (CPS), which was discussed at the Board on August 29, 2012. It also reflects lessons learned and resulting suggestions from the CPS completion and learning review (CLR), which is presented in this report. Following a decade of strong economic growth in Ethiopia, the CPF addresses the challenges of forging a growth path that is more broadly inclusive and sustainable. The CPF program will focus on: (i) promoting structural and economic transformation through increased productivity; (ii) building resilience and inclusiveness (including gender equality); and (iii) supporting institutional accountability and confronting corruption. This CPF adopts a spatial lens through which this five-year program will seek to deliver bold results and to tackle two of the greatest spatial challenges to Ethiopia’s quest to achieve lower middle-income status by 2025.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of North Macedonia for the Period of January 2019-June 2023(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2019-03-21)This Country Partnership Framework (CPF) sets out the World Bank Group’s approach to supporting the reform agenda in North Macedonia over January 2019–June 2023. The CPF builds on the results and lessons of the previous World Bank Group Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) that originally covered the period from July 2014 to June 2018 and was subsequently extended by six months to December 2018. The new CPF seeks to address the priorities identified by the recently completed Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) for North Macedonia. The strategic objective of the CPF is to support North Macedonia’s ability to achieve faster, inclusive, and sustainable growth and provide its citizens with greater opportunities for a better life. The CPF aims to support the Government’s program and medium-term strategy, which present a vision of accelerated economic growth with better employment opportunities, social cohesion and inclusion, and a plan to tackle the persistent bottlenecks. The Government strategy is consistent with the SCD’s vision of a better-connected, vibrant domestic economy engaged in the region and beyond as it secures its footing in areas of strong comparative advantage.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of South Africa for the Period FY22-FY26(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2021-06-24)South Africa was hard-hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The social impact of the crisis has also been high. Since 2019, the Government of South Africa (GoSA) has embarked on a new socio-economic transformation program. This crisis has forced the Government to make difficult policy choices to restore macroeconomic stability, deal with the health and socioeconomic crisis, accelerate growth and make it more inclusive. In line with the Government priorities and those presented in the SCD, the central tenet of this Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is to help South Africa continue to tackle its Apartheid legacy of socio-economic exclusion, currently complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CPF’s overarching goal is to support SA in stimulating investment and job creation to achieve economic and social convergence for an inclusive and resilient society.Publication Country Partnership Framework for Georgia for the Period FY19-FY22(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2018-04-25)This Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for FY19–FY22 sets out the World Bank Group’s (WBG) proposals for supporting the Government of Georgia’s vision of developing a market based economy while ensuring nationwide prosperity and strengthening its regional position. Building on the strong foundation put in place by the previous FY14 to FY17 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), this CPF will work to consolidate gains and move the economy toward addressing next generation development challenges for sustained and inclusive growth and poverty reduction. The CPF proposes a strategic shift in focus from an infrastructure heavy program to one that emphasizes expanding human capital. WBG interventions over the next four years will aim to reduce gaps in human endowments and create economic opportunities that will ensure inclusive and sustainable economic growth. The WBG will support Georgia in sustaining strong productivity led growth while maintaining a direct line of sight to the “Bottom 40” those Georgians whose annual household income falls into the bottom 40 percent of the country. To support the government in achieving the twin goals of eliminating extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity, the CPF envisages support to Georgia across three focus group areas: (i) enhancing inclusive growth and competitiveness, (ii) investing in human capital, and (iii) building resilience. The CPF will pay special attention to vulnerable groups and lagging regions that have not benefited from the fruits of growth.Interventions will target special groups such as women, youth, and rural communities where most poor people live. Across the three focus areas, the CPF will rely on three engagement principles to guide the selection of interventions: (i) maximizing finance for development (MfD), which aims to leverage the private sector for growth and sustainable development; (ii) spatial equity, as a means to redress currently regional imbalances within the country; and (iii) innovation, given the rapid pace of technological changes and digitization and its effects on productivity and competitiveness. Lending commitments will evolve during the CPF as they have throughout the WBG’s engagement with Georgia and the current portfolio of investments and advisory services and analytics (ASA) will serve as a solid base to enable the WBG to achieve the intended strategic shifts in this CPF.Publication Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Moldova for the Period FY18-21(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017-06-29)The quest for an alternative development model that underlies Moldova’s National Development Strategy (NDS), Moldova 2020, is a recognition that the two main drivers of economic growth and poverty reduction since the early 2000s are no longer sustainable. Growth was powered largely by consumption, and poverty reduction mainly by remittances and pensions. Since neither are expected to continue, future growth and poverty reduction will need to be driven increasingly by private sector-led job creation. Moreover, given the country’s vulnerability to changes in external demand and weather shocks, due to its small size, open economy, and reliance on agriculture, Moldova’s future development path will also need to include measures to renew and protect its human, physical, and social capital stock. Against this background, the main purpose of the FY18-21 Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is to support Moldova’s transition towards a new, more sustainable and inclusive development and growth model. It is grounded in the NDS, takes into account outcomes of the FY14-17 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), and incorporates the three topmost priorities of the recent Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD), namely: (a) strengthening the rule of law and accountability in economic institutions; (b) improving inclusive access to and the efficiency and quality of public services; and (c) enhancing the quality and relevance of education and training for job-relevant skills. These three priorities define and inform the CPF’s three focus areas: economic governance, service governance, and skills development, which are supplemented by climate change, a World Bank Group corporate priority, as a cross-cutting theme. The CPF incorporates key lessons learned during the last CPS, that political instability and governance challenges slow the pace of reform and that frequent personnel changes affect portfolio performance. Further, it assumes that the economic, political, and social stability experienced since January 2016 will continue at least until parliamentary elections in November 2018. Given that Moldova’s post-election political orientation, policy environment, and stability are uncertain, only the first half of the CPF (FY18-19) is programmed. Activities for the second half (FY20-21) will be defined during the FY19 Performance and Learning Review (PLR).
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
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 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.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 Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.