Publication: Building or Bypassing Recipient Country Systems : Are Donors Defying the Paris Declaration?
Loading...
Files in English
346 downloads
Published
2014-03-21
ISSN
0022-0388
Date
2014-04-28
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
The 2005 Paris Declaration committed donors to increased use of recipient country systems for managing aid, particularly in countries with higher-quality systems. Using indicators explicitly endorsed by the Paris Declaration and covering the 2005-2010 period, this study finds a positive, significant, and robust relationship between quality of systems and their use by donors. Thus, donors appear to have modified at least some of their aid practices in ways that build rather than undermine administrative capacity and accountability mechanisms in recipient countries. However, quality of systems explains a relatively small share of the variation in their use, and there is considerable heterogeneity among donors in their use of country systems, and in their sensitivity to quality of systems.
Link to Data Set
Digital Object Identifier
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Building or Bypassing Recipient Country Systems : Are Donors Defying the Paris Declaration?(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2013-04)The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness sets targets for increased use by donors of recipient country systems for managing aid. It also calls for donors to be more responsive to the quality of recipient country systems: the optimal level of their use, in terms of maximizing the development effectiveness of aid, is believed to vary with their quality. This study investigates the degree to which donors' use of country systems is in fact positively related to their quality, using indicators explicitly endorsed for this purpose by the Paris Declaration and covering the 2005-2010 period. The results of these tests strongly confirm a positive and significant relationship, and show it is robust to corrections for potential sample selection, omitted variables, or endogeneity bias. The result holds even when estimates are informed only by variation over time within each donor-recipient pair in use and quality of country systems. Moreover, donor-specific tests show that use of country systems varies positively with their quality for the vast majority of donors. These findings contradict several other studies that claim there is no relation and imply that donors in this respect are failing to live up to their commitments under the Paris Declaration. The author's interpretation of the available evidence on use of country systems is more favorable: donors' behavior over the measurement period is largely consistent with their commitments in this area. In this respect, at least, donors appear to have modified their aid practices in ways that build rather than undermine administrative capacity and accountability in recipient country governments.Publication Donor Fragmentation and Bureaucratic Quality in Aid Recipients(World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2004-01)This paper analyzes the impact of donor fragmentation on the quality of government bureaucracy in aid-recipient nations. A formal model of a donor's decision to hire government administrators to manage donor-funded projects predicts that the number of administrators hired declines as the donor's share of other projects in the country increases, and as the donor's "altruism" (concern for the success of other donors' projects) increases. These hypotheses are supported by cross-country empirical tests using an index of bureaucratic quality available for aid-recipient nations over the 1982-2001 period. Declines in bureaucratic quality are associated with higher donor fragmentation (reflecting the presence of many donors, each with a small share of aid), and with smaller shares of aid coming from multilateral agencies, a proxy for donor "altruism."Publication When Do Donors Trust Recipient Country Systems?(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04)The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness sets targets for increased use by donors of recipient country systems for managing aid. The target is premised on a view that country systems are strengthened when donors trust recipients to manage aid funds, but undermined when donors manage aid through their own separate parallel systems. This study provides an analytical framework for understanding donors' decisions to trust or bypass country systems. Empirical tests are conducted using data from three OECD-DAC surveys designed to monitor progress toward Paris Declaration goals. Tests show that a donor's use of the recipient country's systems is positively related to: (1) the donor's share of aid provided to the recipient (a proxy for the donor's reputational stake in the country's development); (2) perceptions of corruption in the recipient country (a proxy for the trustworthiness or quality of the country's systems); and (3) public support for aid in the donor country (a proxy for the donor's risk tolerance). Findings are robust to corrections for potential sample selection, omitted variables or endogeneity bias.Publication Building Better Policies : The Nuts and Bolts of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2012-04-13)Governments around the world face ongoing pressures from citizens to provide more and better services, and to do this under a tight fiscal environment. This provides the context for government efforts to ensure their policies and programs are as effective, and as efficient, as possible. An emphasis on government performance has led a number of governments to create formal systems for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) their performance on a regular, planned, and systematic basis with the objective of improving it. The focus of this book is on these government M&E systems: what they comprise, how they are built and managed, and how they can be used to improve government performance. M&E systems focus on measuring the results produced by government its outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The M&E system may exist at the level of an individual agency, entire sector, or the government as a whole. M&E can provide unique information about the performance of government policies, programs, and projects at the national, sector, and sub-national levels. It can identify what works, what does not, and the reasons why. M&E also provides information about the performance of a government, of individual ministries and agencies, and of managers and their staff. This book endeavors to expand the frontiers of issues that have been researched and analyzed. However, there are still a number of issues that are still not understood well enough. This book presents case studies on several countries that have succeeded in achieving high levels of utilization of M&E information, including Australia, Canada, Chile, and Mexico.Publication Which Donors, Which Funds?(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-10)The rapid growth of trust funds at multilateral development organizations has been widely neglected in the academic literature so far. Using a simple illustrative model, this paper examines the choice by sovereign donors among various trust fund options. The authors contend that the choice among the different trust funds involves a fundamental trade-off: larger funds provide donors with the benefit of burden sharing. Conversely, each donor can better assert its individual preferences in a fund with fewer other donors. The theoretical considerations yield testable implications on a range of factors affecting this fundamental tradeoff, most notably the area of intervention of the trust fund and competing domestic interests of donor countries. Using a sample of World Bank trust funds, the paper examines the participation decisions of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee donors over the past decade. In line with the theoretical argument, preference homogeneity among donors as well as indicators for global activities and fragile states assistance are robust determinants of participation in (large) multi-donor funds. In contrast, donors tend to prefer single-donor trust funds in areas in which their national interests dominate. Although they could use bilateral aid for the same purpose, they often prefer to channel their contributions through trust funds at multilateral agencies. Donors thereby reduce their own administrative costs, while benefiting from the expertise of the multilateral agency. These findings confirm prior qualitative case studies and evidence from donor reports, suggesting that reduced reliance on single-donor trust funds—a costly instrument from the perspective of multilateral agencies—can improve the development effectiveness of aid.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Global Economic Prospects, January 2025(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-01-16)Global growth is expected to hold steady at 2.7 percent in 2025-26. However, the global economy appears to be settling at a low growth rate that will be insufficient to foster sustained economic development—with the possibility of further headwinds from heightened policy uncertainty and adverse trade policy shifts, geopolitical tensions, persistent inflation, and climate-related natural disasters. Against this backdrop, emerging market and developing economies are set to enter the second quarter of the twenty-first century with per capita incomes on a trajectory that implies substantially slower catch-up toward advanced-economy living standards than they previously experienced. Without course corrections, most low-income countries are unlikely to graduate to middle-income status by the middle of the century. Policy action at both global and national levels is needed to foster a more favorable external environment, enhance macroeconomic stability, reduce structural constraints, address the effects of climate change, and thus accelerate long-term growth and development.Publication Global Economic Prospects, June 2025(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-06-10)The global economy is facing another substantial headwind, emanating largely from an increase in trade tensions and heightened global policy uncertainty. For emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs), the ability to boost job creation and reduce extreme poverty has declined. Key downside risks include a further escalation of trade barriers and continued policy uncertainty. These challenges are exacerbated by subdued foreign direct investment into EMDEs. Global cooperation is needed to restore a more stable international trade environment and scale up support for vulnerable countries grappling with conflict, debt burdens, and climate change. Domestic policy action is also critical to contain inflation risks and strengthen fiscal resilience. To accelerate job creation and long-term growth, structural reforms must focus on raising institutional quality, attracting private investment, and strengthening human capital and labor markets. Countries in fragile and conflict situations face daunting development challenges that will require tailored domestic policy reforms and well-coordinated multilateral support.Publication The Container Port Performance Index 2023(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2024-07-18)The Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) measures the time container ships spend in port, making it an important point of reference for stakeholders in the global economy. These stakeholders include port authorities and operators, national governments, supranational organizations, development agencies, and other public and private players in trade and logistics. The index highlights where vessel time in container ports could be improved. Streamlining these processes would benefit all parties involved, including shipping lines, national governments, and consumers. This fourth edition of the CPPI relies on data from 405 container ports with at least 24 container ship port calls in the calendar year 2023. As in earlier editions of the CPPI, the ranking employs two different methodological approaches: an administrative (technical) approach and a statistical approach (using matrix factorization). Combining these two approaches ensures that the overall ranking of container ports reflects actual port performance as closely as possible while also being statistically robust. The CPPI methodology assesses the sequential steps of a container ship port call. ‘Total port hours’ refers to the total time elapsed from the moment a ship arrives at the port until the vessel leaves the berth after completing its cargo operations. The CPPI uses time as an indicator because time is very important to shipping lines, ports, and the entire logistics chain. However, time, as captured by the CPPI, is not the only way to measure port efficiency, so it does not tell the entire story of a port’s performance. Factors that can influence the time vessels spend in ports can be location-specific and under the port’s control (endogenous) or external and beyond the control of the port (exogenous). The CPPI measures time spent in container ports, strictly based on quantitative data only, which do not reveal the underlying factors or root causes of extended port times. A detailed port-specific diagnostic would be required to assess the contribution of underlying factors to the time a vessel spends in port. A very low ranking or a significant change in ranking may warrant special attention, for which the World Bank generally recommends a detailed diagnostic.Publication The Container Port Performance Index 2020 to 2024: Trends and Lessons Learned(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2025-09-22)The Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) provides a global benchmark of how container ports perform in handling vessel calls. Developed jointly by the World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence, it measures the time ships spend in port and relates this to the number of containers moved during that time. This approach makes the CPPI a unique diagnostic tool that can highlight patterns in port operations and shed light on global and regional supply chain dynamics. Now in its fifth edition, the CPPI report covers the period from 2020 to 2024. It builds on a well-established methodology to generate scores for more than 400 container ports worldwide. Over time, the CPPI has become a trusted reference point for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers who seek to understand how ports adapt to shocks, recover from disruptions, and identify opportunities for investments, reform and modernization. A major innovation in this edition is the introduction of multi-year trend analysis. Rather than presenting annual snapshots, the report now tracks how CPPI scores have changed across five years. This longitudinal perspective reveals shifts in port performance, showing where scores have risen, fallen, or remained stable. By linking these movements to external factors, the CPPI offers insights into how global and regional supply chains evolve under pressure. The results clearly mirror the crises that have shaken global trade. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CPPI scores in different regions declined sharply as congestion, equipment shortages, and delays overwhelmed many ports. By 2023, global averages rebounded in parallel with easing freight markets and reduced congestion. Yet 2024 brought new challenges: the Red Sea crisis disrupted major trade lanes, while climate-related constraints at the Panama Canal added further stress. These shocks were reflected in lower global and several regional average scores, underscoring the vulnerability of maritime transport to geopolitical and environmental events. The CPPI is not about comparing one port against another, but about understanding changes in performance over time. Ports that improved their scores often did so by reducing time at anchor, optimizing berth operations, investing in digital tools, and strengthening coordination across logistics partners. The evidence confirms that improvements are possible across ports of all sizes, and that rising scores are linked to deliberate actions to minimize time in port relative to containers moved. By consolidating five years of results, this edition transforms the CPPI into a long-term reference point. It shows how global crises have affected shipping, how different regions have adapted, and what lessons can be drawn for future resilience. The World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence remain committed to maintaining the CPPI as a global public good, providing transparency, comparability, and practical insights to support more reliable and sustainable maritime supply chains.Publication Business Ready 2024(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2024-10-03)Business Ready (B-READY) is a new World Bank Group corporate flagship report that evaluates the business and investment climate worldwide. It replaces and improves upon the Doing Business project. B-READY provides a comprehensive data set and description of the factors that strengthen the private sector, not only by advancing the interests of individual firms but also by elevating the interests of workers, consumers, potential new enterprises, and the natural environment. This 2024 report introduces a new analytical framework that benchmarks economies based on three pillars: Regulatory Framework, Public Services, and Operational Efficiency. The analysis centers on 10 topics essential for private sector development that correspond to various stages of the life cycle of a firm. The report also offers insights into three cross-cutting themes that are relevant for modern economies: digital adoption, environmental sustainability, and gender. B-READY draws on a robust data collection process that includes specially tailored expert questionnaires and firm-level surveys. The 2024 report, which covers 50 economies, serves as the first in a series that will expand in geographical coverage and refine its methodology over time, supporting reform advocacy, policy guidance, and further analysis and research.