| Member | Action | Date |
|---|---|---|
Djebali Hazem
|
Replied to How to improve the Impact Performance of the Human Development Programs on the Targeted Populations in Morocco ? Show more |
Apr 17 2020, 5:04 AM |
Brahim KHALLOQI
|
Posted How to improve the Impact Performance of the Human Development Programs on the Targeted Populations in Morocco ? on Discussion Show more |
Mar 03 2020, 6:58 AM |
Harry Wilson
|
Posted Banking Instrument BG/SBLC/Loan Issuance on Discussion Show more |
Oct 13 2018, 12:42 PM |
Unknown
|
Updated Presentations from the "Global Conference for Prosperity, Equality, and Sustainability - Perspectives and Policies for a Better World" (New Delhi, June 1-3, 2016) on Discussion Show more |
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated Gabriela Inchauste, PSIA Expert of the Month (April/May 2016) on Discussion
1) How long have you been involved with PSIAs, the PSIA Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), and have things improved over the years?
I’ve been involved in PSIAs since 2000, at the time when the World Bank and the IMF were criticized for not having any worry over the poverty and social impacts of structural adjustments and conditionality related to both IMF and Bank programs. At that time I was working for the IMF on PSIA in programs that were being supported by the IMF, but there was a similar parallel discussion going on at the Bank and I participated in some of those meetings, and those were sort of cross-cutting, so it’s been a very long time. Then I joined the World Bank in 2010 and I was included in the Multi-Donor Trust Fund team from the Poverty Anchor point of view, and already there I saw a big change in the sense of seeing PSIA not as a mandate but as a way of designing programs, so that was definitely a big improvement. Since 2010 what I have seen is that it has become mainstreamed, not only as part of Development Policy Lending (DPL), but also to the extent that the PSIA trust fund has allowed for better quality PSIAs. It has allowed for a demonstrative effect which I think was important. I’ve seen it in several places where well-funded PSIAs took place and similar projects followed, often funded by Bank budget.
2) Are PSIAs relevant to the new World Bank Group? What role can it play with the new twin goals?
I think they’re part of the new twin goals very much, I don’t think that’s changed within the Bank.
3) Why would you would recommend a PSIA to a TTL?
Anytime we are supporting any kind of policy there may be concerns about the potential negative impacts, but I think more and more teams are trying to make sure that the potential positive distributional impacts are maximized as well. With distributional analysis, PSIAs can only help the design of the program and they’re sort of what keeps us anchored to the twin goals, making sure that everything we do goes back to our “mandate”.
4) You have worked on PSIAs projects before, so from a technical perspective, what is exciting about the PSIA approach and what are the main challenges?
I think what’s exciting is that you are able to bring evidence to bear, so instead of having a discussion over people’s opinions on the potential impacts of a reform you’re often able to quantify using data. Other times you’re able to inform the decisions with qualitative approaches. Even perception studies are critical in shaping the communication strategy that the government might have in announcing the reform, and it may also be critical making sure that governments are able to address the political economy factors that actually matter for carying through a reform process. In the absence of those things often reforms fail, so I think what’s interesting about the PSIA approach is that it looks across sectors at different ways, ensuring that the poor are protected, that excluded groups are not forgotten, and more generally that reforms we support can have the social and political backing in order for them to be successful.
5) How can we take PSIA forward once the MDTF ends?
For Development Policy Operations (DPO) it’s relatively easy because they’re part of DPL programs, which means it has to be part of their budget, so those budgets would need to be increased to make sure that the best possible PSIAs can be conducted. In the past what used to happen was that you would have a DPL that had a PSIA component that covered “the bare bones”, and the trust fund often complemented so a “fancier” PSIA could be produced. What I mean by fancier is having something like a survey done, either qualitative or quantitative, that addresses a particular reform action without which funding that kind of PSIA would not be possible, and we would have to go back to get informed opinions or guesses instead of having actual data.
Increasing the amount allocated as part of DPLs for PSIA may be an approach to the extent that the Bank’s funding is more towards lending and less towards AAA. The problem is what to do with PSIAs that have nothing to do with DPLs, and I guess that’s where the big challenge is. The only thing you can do is to make a pitch in every situation for funding from the CMU, competing with other projects and priorities. The CMU needs to see the value added of these things, and you need to prove that PSIA can contribute to the debate on a continual basis. Making PSIA sustainable is critical. My own experience is that where I have been able to convince the CMU to allow me to invest and build a machinery in order to have regular PSIA updates, then the marginal cost of keeping that up was relatively low. What’s costly is the first time you do it. If you have a team that is continuously working on micro data, looking at alternative reforms that could be supported (or not) by the Bank, but with an analysis that could allow the Bank to have a dialogue, then you can sell that to the CMU, and it really becomes powerful. Building that is the challenge, and making the case in every situation is a challenge. I think that countries that are facing lot of fiscal constraints are probably the place to start, because that’s where trade-offs are becoming very obvious, where countries are having to make decisions about a particular tax policy, or social spending policy, or where some painful adjustments needs to be made. Building up a system that allows PSIA to become sustainable is perhaps the right entry point. BIOGRAPHY
Gabriela Inchauste is a lead economist in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. She currently leads work on Fiscal and Social Policies for poverty reduction and shared prosperity, where she has been exploring the distributional impact of fiscal policy, ex-ante analysis of the distributional impacts of policy reforms, and understanding the channels through which economic growth improves labor market opportunities for poverty reduction. A Bolivian national, she holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Texas at Austin. |
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated PSIA of the Month (April/May 2016) on Discussion Show more |
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated TTL of the Month: Patricia Fernandes (April/May 2016) on Discussion
1) Why PSIA? Why did you choose PSIA over any other bank instrument or product? I think the obvious reason is that PSIA provides teams with dedicated funding - for analytical work but it also opens up the opportunity to do good qualitative analysis, which is less usual for among bank Trust Funds/instruments. We used it in Myanmar, in Community Driven Development work in the Philippines, as well as on China (focusing more on social inclusion issues). It allows you to do focused analytical work with both quantitative and qualitative elements to help inform policy dialogue or further improve large-scale operations.
2) What was the most embarrassing/challenging moment while working on the PSIA you conducted, for example the one in Myanmar? I think all the PSIAs I’ve been involved in had different challenges - since the contexts were so different. In the Myanmar work there were two challenging elements: one was making sure that while we were doing the work we were also building the capacity of the local research partner. The research firm we worked with had amazing local knowledge and field research capacity, and we worked in very close collaboration (very hands on) to provide additional support on the data analysis front. The other side of the spectrum was the policy dialogue: once you have this wealth of information it’s important to be able to prioritize the most policy relevant issues from the broad range of the things you found - those that can really be taken forward with the operational work and in policy dialogue with Government counterparts. For example on the Myanmar energy PSIA, a lot of our analysis focused on what to do to make sure that the most vulnerable groups within the communities do have access to electricity as the network expands, and there’s a range of solutions/recommendations that came out of the analysis: subsidies to communities, putting in place mechanisms to ensure that the participatory planning is inclusive, etc.. However, there are some trade-offs in terms of what government can take on and what they cannot, and being selective/strategic is very important.
3) If you had to do this PSIA over, what would you do differently, based on the lessons learned from this one? On the Myanmar work a key lesson would be to make sure to have a stronger connection with government staff from the beginning of the analysis to make sure they participate more actively in the design of the research, understand the methodology in greater detail. We tried very hard to do this but did not get as far as we expected on that front. Building government counterpart’s capacity to manage similar type research in the future will be very important going forward.
4) Any recommendations for TTLs working on PSIAs – what are the top three things TTLs should always keep in mind when working on a PSIA. The first thing is being very mindful of the kinds of questions you are picking, making sure that they’re policy-relevant, beyond questions in which we (within teams) have a particular interest. You need to choose questions that are priority questions for Government and address specific policy concerns, that will help improve delivery of particular programs for example. Second, every time that you are combining qualitative with quantitative approaches, the “marriage” can be a little tricky depending on what you are working on and what kind of research partner you may be able to mobilize. It’s important to make sure that both elements can complement each other well, are well sequenced and methodological solid. Third, it’s very important to invest sufficient resources in the dissemination portion of the PSIA work. Once you have your findings at hand it’s key to make them widely available and a central part of the discussion on the “what’s next”. Research is really important but so is the practical application of it!
5) How can we take PSIA forward after the MDTF ends? This is a difficult question. In most of the operational work we do “complementary” analysis is trust funded. In Myanmar, PSIA funds were programmed together with ESMAP (Energy) trust fund resources, and in the Philippines the analysis conducted through PSIA (on access to land by Indigenous Peoples) was also complemented by Trust Fund resources from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Government of Australia). There is definitely scope to continue the type of social analysis carried out under PSIA through other (perhaps country-level or sector-specific Trust Funds). Funding this analytical work exclusively from bank budget would not have been possible in our case. However, seeing the outcomes of some of innovative types of analysis that have been funded by PSIA (I mean globally – not these specific pieces) has contributed to opened people’s minds to look at different types of analysis and methodologies and some of this will definitely be reflected in the analytical work that is taken forward at country level (be through trust funds or bank budget).
6) What do you do when you are not doing a PSIA? A lot of what I work on is Community-Driven Development and mostly in the Philippines with the new(ish) National Community-Driven Development project. The NCDDP which Government launched in 2014 covers all the poorest municipalities in the country and has a very large component on disaster response. Several municipalities where the program is working are actually still recovering from typhoon Haiyan, and that’s a very large part of what I work on with the team at the moment. BIOGRAPHY
Patricia Fernandes is a Senior Social Development Specialist in the East Asia and Pacific Region working primarily in Community Driven Development operations. Prior to joining the World Bank, she worked for the UN in Kosovo and for UNICEF in Angola and Mozambique. She received her undergraduate degree in anthropology from Oxford University and her Master of Science (in Anthropology and Social Development) from the London School of Economics. |
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated Bhutan Heritage Sites Bill - Interview with Stefania Abakerli on Discussion
Dear PSIA CoP Members,
I would like to share with you all an interview conducted by our team when we first launched the CoP. Back then this interview was only featured on our Spark page, as we didn't have a C4D channel. We hope you'll enjoy learning more from Stefania's experience on a successful PSIA on Bhutan's cultural heritage (document attached).
Why PSIA? Why did you choose PSIA over any other bank instrument or product?
The PSIA focus on the analysis of the likely impacts of policy reforms on the well-being of different stakeholders, especially the poor, provided the team and our client with the best analytical approach to predict ex ante what the economic and social impacts of the draft Heritage Sites Bill could be before it was adopted. Through empirical evidence and stakeholder engagement, it also informed the Bill’s further design by identifying gaps, possible negative impacts, and mitigation strategies (what ended up being a set of incentives). The PSIA also provided the team and our client with a powerful but simple framework for analysis (its transmission channels), and a rich menu of qualitative and quantitative methods which were combined and carried out sequentially under this first-of-its-kind poverty analysis of a cultural policy.
What was the most embarrassing/challenging moment while working on this PSIA? One challenging moment was when the field research team reached Takchu Goenpa, one of the four selected villages for the primary data collection. The village was largely uninhabited due to unexpected early seasonal migration to lower pastures during the proposed time of the field research. The team had to return to Thimphu and a new village had to be selected and all arrangements made within a very tight timeframe. An embarrassing moment was to learn that the printed reports would not arrive on time for the final dissemination workshop with the Home Minister (the reports were stuck first in DC due to a snow storm and later in Bangkok during the weekend). I had to spend the entire weekend printing color copies and the government team made miracles to make them presentable to the Home Minister. At last, the beautiful reports arrived the next day and were sent to the participants.
If you had to do this PSIA over, what would you do differently, based on the lessons learned from this one? As the first PSIA of a cultural policy carried out by the Bank (and perhaps elsewhere), the entire process was a learning. I would certainly request more funds for a similar PSIA (!), and add to the scope of work at least one a priori inter-institutional workshop with all concerned agencies to share its scope and methodology within a larger platform. We shared its scope in a one-on-one basis and had funds to organized only one inter-institutional workshop for its final dissemination (which was truly inspiring).
What are the top three things TTLs should always keep in mind when working on a PSIA?
One of the main success factors of this PSIA was the total collaboration with our clients in its making. Their full involvement from its conceptualization to the write up of the final report has not only assured a clear set up of the PSIA assumptions and instruments, but also led to more meaningful recommendations and above all greater ownership. In the end, the PSIA was annexed to the Bill itself. The team cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary composition was important to ensure a sound analysis and internal acceptance of findings. This was particularly important given that some in the Bank (not in Bhutan) are still skeptical about the role of culture in development. Our Sr. Country Economist at the time played a key role in the poverty data analysis and later presentation, which revealed the geography of poverty in the country. Despite the high cultural significance of heritage villages in Bhutan, from a poverty perspective, the PSIA showed that the poor are more likely to inhabit houses constructed of traditional materials. This unbiased and well-presented finding (by him) could not be challenge...
What do you do when you are not doing a PSIA? In Bhutan, I happily explored the villages we visited, went to cafes with Bhutanese friends in Thimphu, read tons of books about the country and its traditions, and enjoyed buying a Kira for my meetings with the PM and Home Minister. In DC, I shared these stories with my daughters and keep dreaming of my next work on and visit to the country (with my family).
BIOGRAPHY
|
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated PSIA of the Month (Feb/March 2016) on Discussion Show more |
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
|
Unknown
|
Updated Interview with Nils Junge, PSIA Expert of the Month (Feb-March 2016) on Discussion
1) How long have you been involved with PSIAs, the PSIA Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), and have things improved over the years? I conducted my first PSIA in 2003 when I was on a team assessing the social impacts of rising electricity tariffs in Moldova. In terms of breadth and relevance it was the most interesting analytical work I had done to date. On the one hand there was a rigorous data analysis dimension – we merged billing data with Household Budget Survey data to estimate changes in consumption behavior. On the other hand, it involved holding meetings across an entire country’s social strata – from poor villagers, to NGOs, to academics, to private sector CEOs, to civil servants, all the way up to the Minister of Energy. I learned a great deal from Julian Lampietti (the World Bank manager for that PSIA) who had done a number of early PSIAs in the energy sector. After Moldova I decided to do as much of this type of work as I could, and since then I’ve been directly involved in about two dozen PSIAs. A large number of these have been in the utility sector, but they’ve also covered mining, forestry, shipyards, trade, and land administration. My impression is that, over the years, awareness and acceptance of PSIA (within the Bank and at a few other development agencies) has grown. The approach has been refined and its utilization has become better. I’ve seen how it can inform and reframe debates on reforms. However, I am unsure just how much greater awareness of PSIA has translated into ‘willingness to pay’ within the Bank. There are a number of TTLs who strongly believe in doing PSIA, but because of the cost, managers are often reluctant to draw on their limited budgets. This is so even though the cost is moderate compared with other analytical work conducted at the Bank. On the client side, most governments, who are (or should be) the real beneficiaries of PSIAs, are generally unwilling to finance them. So we probably need to do a better job of demonstrating PSIA relevance. 2) Are PSIAs relevant to the new World Bank Group? What role can it play with the new twin goals? With the Twin Goals, as well as the new Sustainable Development Goals, I think PSIA is as relevant now as it has ever been. It can help the Bank put its money where its mouth is: if reducing poverty and inequality is the aim, then a PSIA should really be done for every DPL or project with potential economic impacts on households. By the way, disregarding the potential distributional impacts of policies can actually increase inequality. How? Imagine a project or policy reform that benefits primarily the middle class because the poor are too far away, or don’t have the mean to take advantage of sector improvements. For example, transportation investments or institutional reforms which have broadly positive economic effects can be a boon to those who use the services. However, for the poor and vulnerable who can’t access them it could mean watching their better off fellow citizens climb the economic ladder while they stay on the bottom rung.
3) What are the top three reasons you would recommend a PSIA to a TTL? I believe a TTL will find value in commissioning PSIA because: i) it fills information gaps, shedding light on poverty and social dimensions of a sector; ii) it stimulates policy dialogue on the design and implementation of reforms; and iii) it is a highly adaptable approach – all kinds of quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to address the core questions. Of course, this assumes that a good, multi-disciplinary team is assembled, that there is regular contact with the project preparation team, and that there is plenty of interaction with the relevant government counterparts during the study. 4) You have worked on PSIAs projects before, so from a technical perspective, what is exciting about the PSIA approach and what are the main challenges? Think of PSIA as being the node between policy and evaluation. You use evaluation methods (household surveys, statistical analysis, qualitative research, political economy analysis, etc.) to address critical questions while engaging with stakeholders throughout. In fact, the analytical work involved in doing PSIA can serve as an excellent platform for discussing issues that maybe wouldn’t be aired otherwise. The biggest challenges I’ve encountered relate to obtaining good data and sufficient time to analyze and analyze it. However, every single PSIA is challenging in some way. That’s just the nature of the beast. It usually addresses a controversial issue which carries significant fiscal, social, and political implications. Almost always trade-offs, and short-term sacrifices, are called for. There are vested interests opposed to the reforms. Getting the government to make use of PSIA findings and recommendations can be a struggle. Nonetheless, more governments should take advantage of the approach, because a PSIA, executed well, can ease the path to difficult reforms. It can help address thorny issues, such as spreading the burden of price increases, and subsidy cuts in a way that is socially acceptable and politically feasible. For example, putting insufficient effort into designing and communicating tariff increases or subsidy cuts can end up costing governments hundreds of millions of dollars, and lead to social unrest. While conducting PSIA on the controversial restructuring of a copper mine in Serbia, we organized several rounds of dialogue with trade unions, local stakeholders, ministry officials, and others. The restricting was going to lead to job cuts, and severance pay was a big stumbling block. The PSIA had the effect of moving parties from a confrontational stance to dialogue and problem solving. I’m not saying PSIA is a magic bullet, but you can do a lot with it! It’s possible that the acronym is a barrier to more widespread awareness and uptake. You always have to unpack the term. PSIA doesn’t seem to be known within the larger research and policy community, although it should be. If you enter ‘PSIA’ into scholar.google.com, only about one percent of the hits relate to ‘poverty and social impact analysis’. I would argue that it can be characterized as a sub-category of evaluation (which is a huge and growing area), and it should be promoted as such.
BIOGRAPHY
A policy advisor and evaluation specialist, Nils Junge works closely with governments and development partners (including the World Bank, ADB, IMF, and USAID) to develop evidence-based reform options that are socially acceptable and politically feasible. With a career spanning over 15 years and work in over 30 countries, he conducts quantitative and qualitative research and analysis in the electricity, water supply, district heating, agriculture, employment, mining, and trade sectors. He has conducted over 20 PSIAs. He is currently leading a team helping the Kyrgyz government develop a new water supply and sanitation policy. Mr. Junge holds an MA from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) with a concentration in development economics and conflict management. He is based in Washington, DC and speaks eight languages.
|
Jun 04 2018, 6:05 PM |
