It's Only Words : Validating the CPIA Governance Assessments

Knack, Stephen

World Bank, Washington, DC

关键词: ACCOUNTABILITY;    AID ALLOCATION;    AID EFFECTIVENESS;    AUTHORITY;    AVERAGE RATINGS;   

DOI  :  10.1596/1813-9450-6526
RP-ID  :  WPS6526

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: World Bank Open Knowledge Repository

【 摘 要 】

This study analyzes the validity of theWorld Bank's Country Policy and InstitutionalAssessments governance ratings, an important factor inallocating the Bank's concessionary InternationalDevelopment Association funds. It tests for certain biasesin the ratings, and examines the quality of the writtenjustifications that accompany the ratings. The study findsno evidence of bias in favor of International DevelopmentAssociation-eligible countries, despite a potential moralhazard problem inherent in the ratings process. However,there is some evidence of an upward bias in ratings for oneregion, relative to the other five regions. The study findssignificant regional differences in the quality of thewritten justifications accompanying the six World Bankregions' proposed ratings. The length of thesewrite-ups has exploded over time. Although higher-qualitywrite-ups are also longer on average, there is widedispersion in the word count at any given quality level, andsome long write-ups provide little relevant information.Higher quality write-ups are associated with a lowerlikelihood that central unit reviewers will either disagreewith proposed ratings, or request additional information toassess the proposed rating. Controlling for quality, longerwrite-ups are associated with a greater probability thatcentral reviewers will disagree with a proposed rating.Although checks and balances built into the process appearto work reasonably well, the author concludes that a moreproactive role for central unit reviewers and regional chiefeconomists' offices could further enhance the qualityof write-ups and reduce regional bias.