1 / 24

State-Building in Fragile States: An Assessment Toolkit

State-Building in Fragile States: An Assessment Toolkit. CONTEXT. Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of donors in FCS forward, BUT

alicia
Download Presentation

State-Building in Fragile States: An Assessment Toolkit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. State-Building in Fragile States:An Assessment Toolkit

  2. CONTEXT • Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility • WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of donors in FCS forward, BUT • Challenges of operationalization and persisting weaknesses in donor approaches to state-building: •  Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States: • Overarching 'Guidance Note’ • Interactive E-Tool (excel-based) • 'How To' Note on how to use the Tool • Set of 'State Building at a Glance' indicators, • Working / background paper reviewing literature underpinning the approach

  3. Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States • Offers country and donor teams: • A common ‘language’ or framework for approaching/ understanding fundamental state-building issues • A structured and guided process for collectively an consistently discussing and assessing state-building challenges and their implications for country programming • Toolkit CAN: • Help teams arrive at a common understanding on state-building challenges and implications for country programming • Help ‘surface’ some of the difficult state-building challenges that often are passed over • Help identify areas for further in-depth investigation (via PEA and other analytical instruments/ approaches) • Toolkit CANNOT provide definitive answers (if you find X, then do Y)

  4. Social and Political Context: Nature and Context of Fragility • 3 core dimensions/ characteristics of functioning states and institutions: Authority, Capacity, Legitimacy (ACL) • 4 ‘domains’ where these dimensions play out: constitutive/survival domains (security, political/ government), and output/expected domains (economic, social service delivery) • A myriad of institutions that contribute to outcomes in the four domains • Each institution will have its own authority-capacity-legitimacy (ACL) challenges Overview - Conceptual framework

  5. THE ACL FRAMEWORK – CORE CONCEPTS

  6. A C L SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMIC SOC/ SERV DEL. A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc. POL/ GVT . INSTIT. Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavages Political settlement, political system and social contract Macro-/Structural Level Specific Institutions & Organizations 1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT AUTHORITY (A) CAPACITY (C) LEGITIMACY (L) 2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT 3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT 4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT

  7. Excel-based Tool guides teams step by step through the assessment process • Each step includes questions or ‘prompts’ to help teams: • Assess the ACL of the state or of key institutions at the respective level and identify state-building needs based on this assessment • Assess what the government, the Bank, and the international community are doing to address these needs • Identify the implications of the assessment for the Bank’s portfolio in terms of risks, priorities and next steps Over view – State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)

  8. A C L SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMIC SOC/ SERV DEL. A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc. POL/ GVT . INSTIT. Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavages Political settlement, political system and social contract Macro-/Structural Level Specific Institutions & Organizations 1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT AUTHORITY (A) CAPACITY (C) LEGITIMACY (L) State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications 2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT 2. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications Prioritization 3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT 3. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONALIMPLICATIONS Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications Prioritization 4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT Analysis Practice

  9. Team-based assessment and planning tool  workshop of 1 to 4 days (depending on version used) • Needs: • Team contact person + facilitator for planning, conducting and following up on the workshop • Ideally: work in groups of max 5-6 people • Laptop(s) + Projector(s) How to use the SBAT

  10. The SBAT is best used to inform the development of country strategies in FCS (ISNs or CASs), but it can be ‘customized’ to meet a variety of needs. E.g.: • Joint donor assessments. • Focus on a specific sector or domain. • Use for sub-national authorities. • Use with government and/ or civil society representatives. • Use in other low- and middle-income countries. Purpose and Options for Customization

  11. Not just ‘another’ analytical tool:  • Focuses more directly on the state and what the Bank and its partners can do to strengthen it • Takes a systematic approach of linking different levels of assessment: • From the macro-/ strategic level to individual institutions and organizations • From analysis to strategic and operational implications • Offers a conceptual framework or a ‘common language’ on state-building. • Generates a common team-based experience of linking analysis to operational implications • Can 'surface' many of the difficult issues and diverse viewpoints about state-building that often are left unnoticed • Offers (some) suggestions for strategic and operational choices for supporting state-building • Structured guidance for systematic team discussion of state-building challenges and implications Conclusion

  12. The SBAT in detail

  13. To understand to nature and the causes of fragility • Structural Causes – e.g. ethnic or religious divisions, economic inequality • Elite cleavages • Social cleavages/ social cohesion • Political Settlement/ Political System • Social Contract/ Citizen-State Relations • Reflection of key drivers of fragility in the four domains of governance • Key issues, risks and expected evolution over time • Sets the stage for considering the state and its institutions with their overall socio-political context Step 1. Assess the Social and Political Context

  14. To get an overall picture of the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy • ‘Flags’ issues for further assessment at the next stages • Can highlight some macro-level risks and strategic implications for teams • E.g. if the state has high legitimacy due to political inclusion, but low capacity to deliver services that are increasingly demanded by the population, then ‘flag’ building capacity for service delivery as a key issue to keep in mind for the following steps. Step 2. Strategic/ Overall Country-Level Assessment

  15. ‘Disaggregating’ ACL in the four domains of governance (security, political/ gvt., economic, and social/ service delivery) - Helps to: • See in which domain and dimension the state performs better or worse • Suggestions for indicators to help assess the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy in each domain •  get a more disaggregated picture of ‘meso-level’ challenges and implications for country programming •  assign priorities to each domain (if possible/ desired) • Identify sector-level risks and priorities • Some suggestions for strategic/ operational options to consider in each domain + further literature included in toolbox Step 3. Domain Level Assessment

  16. List of ‘typical’ institutions for each domain: • Prompts to determine ACL of the listed institutions • Option to add country-specific institutions that are not listed  generic questions that can be applied/ adapted to any institution • Helps to: • Identify key institutions and their strengths and weaknesses in terms of ACL •  assign priorities and develop more fine-grained, ‘micro-level’ operational options/ implications for country programming • Some general suggestions on strengthening ACL of institutions • e.g. align de jure and de facto authority, build capacity of organizations not just individuals etc. Step 4. INSTITUTIONAL assessment

  17. To get an overall – integrated – picture of the assessment and the implications • Snapshot: all color-based ratings • Summary: text for key issues for state stability and resilience and next steps for the Bank • Review: • Quick ‘glimpse’ of key challenges, priorities, next steps etc. • Ensure consistency– revisit assessments where necessary Step 5: Country Snapshot and Summary

More Related