Appendix C: Country Case Study Methodology

Transcription

1 Appendix C: Cuntry Case Study Methdlgy Guiding Principles Cuntry cases fllw a multiple cuntry case study design, that is, fcus n three reginal clusters each with three sets f PPP prjects with distinct features. In ttal nine cuntry case studies were selected n a purpsive basis with a view t generating three sets f case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean and East Asia and Pacific, the tw mst active regins in applying PPPs, and Sub-Saharan Africa, with ne f the lwest PPP activity levels and high cancellatin rates. This allwed learning frm bth the cmmn case as well as the critical case. Each set cntains ne cuntry where the Wrld Bank Grup prvided mainly upstream supprt t study its effects n the cuntry s PPP agenda and / r subsequent PPP transactins; ne cuntry where the Wrld Bank was active mainly dwnstream; and ne cuntry where the Wrld Bank was active bth upstream and dwnstream t study the added value f cntinuus engagement and the effects f direct supprt t PPPs. See Table C.1 fr cuntries cvered by all nine case studies. Drawing lessns within and acrss these regins, in particular acrss these hrizntal cases yielded mre valid and rbust lessns. The purpse f cuntry case studies is t enrich the learning agenda f the evaluatin and t fill certain gaps. Mre specifically, cuntry cases are cnducted t Answer questins f hw and why, that is, t btain the necessary cntextual infrmatin and insights t identify drivers f success and failure; we d nt aim at telling a rating stry based n cuntry cases. Address the questin f whether PPP prjects prduced desired utcmes as a result f specific sectral factrs r as a result f verall gvernance/framewrk/cuntry factrs that culd be transferred acrss sectrs and may be cuntry specific. Cllect infrmatin n if and hw Bank Grup upstream wrk was used by the gvernments/cuntries fr subsequent PPP transactins whether supprted by the Bank Grup r nt. Fr dwnstream wrk, t assess PPP sustainability in the lnger term, including the need t renegtiate PPP during their lifespan. Address issues f cmplementarity and synergies which may nt be evident frm cuntry r prject level dcuments. Cuntry case studies cvered the entire Wrld Bank Grup PPP prtfli, as identified by the prject team. These PPP interventins were recrded in the prtfli analysis database by the team and the case study authr was advised t make use f this infrmatin when answering the evaluatin questins, preferably when preparing fr the missin as well as when drafting the case study reprt. During the actual field visit t the cuntry, the incumbent evaluated these Bank Grup PPP interventins in greater detail and answered the evaluatin questins (see next sectin) thrugh interviews with relevant cunterparts, gvernment fficials, beneficiaries, investrs, industry assciatins, civil sciety rganizatins, academia, and ther suitable stakehlders, cmplemented by data gathering and site visits. If because f size nt all interventins culd be 151

2 COUNTRY CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY reviewed in detail, a sample was chsen purpsively in crdinatin with the task team leader s that the selected sample 1. Mirrred the verall prtfli cmpsitin in terms f Bank Grup entities engaged and in terms f types f interventins, even if the sample size fr each interventin type was likely nt statistically representative. 2. Allwed fr a rich learning experience with regard t the cuntry s PPP agenda. 3. In case IFC Advisry Services r MIGA prjects culd be assessed in the cuntry even in an upstream cuntry, they had t be assessed, as utcme infrmatin is scare in the prtfli review. Each authr crdinated the selectin f the PPP prjects with the team and task team leader and dcumented the selectin up frnt in the cuntry case study. Depending n the type f the cuntry the fcus f the case study was n the relevant type f supprt, that is, fr upstream cuntries n Wrld Bank Grup upstream supprt, fr cntinuus engagement cuntries n the entire spectrum f Bank Grup supprt (up and dwnstream), fr dwnstream cuntries mre Bank Grup supprt t actual PPP transactin. This, hwever, did nt preclude an assessment f sme upstream wrk even in a dwnstream cuntry r cnversely, f sme dwnstream wrk in an upstream cuntry. In general, the evaluatin fcused n Bank Grup interventins that have already been delivered, fr example, clsed Wrld Bank prjects, cmpleted PPIAF/WBI activities, and / r peratinally matured IFC/MIGA investments. Table C.1. Cuntries Cvered by Case Studies LAC EAP SSA Upstream cuntries Guatemala Vietnam Ghana Cntinuus engagement cuntries Clmbia Philippines Uganda Dwnstream cuntries Brazil (based n CPE) China Senegal Nte: CPE = cuntry prgram evaluatin; EAP = East Asia and Pacific Regin; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean Regin; SSA = Sub Saharan Africa. 152

3 COUNTRY CASE METHODOLOGY Template fr Cuntry Case Study 85 SECTION I: THE COUNTRY EXPERIENCE AND PPP AGENDA, FY02 12 Recent relevant plitical ecnmy develpments Relevant macrecnmic develpments FY02 12 Overview f the cuntry s experience with implementing its PPP agenda. SECTION II: WORLD BANK GROUP ROLE AND RELEVANCE Hw did the rle f PPPs evlve in Wrld Bank Grup cuntry strategies (CAS, ISN)? Did the Wrld Bank Grup s PPP interventins address develpment pririties in that cuntry; that is, were they relevant? Hw did the Wrld Bank Grup engagement peratinally in the cuntry s PPP agenda (add table, if needed), did this engagement change ver time (fr example, see a shift in the mix f tls r a shift frm upstream t mre transactin riented wrk) and if s why? Was the Bank Grup respnsive in case pririties changes r emerged? What s the rle f the Wrld Bank Grup in the cuntry s PPP agenda and vis-à-vis ther majr dnrs/mdbs? Was the Bank Grup mre active upstream r dwnstream vis-à-vis the ther players? Did the Bank Grup prvide a cmprehensive slutin package, including up and dwnstream wrk? Hw was crdinatin f Wrld Bank Grup wrk with ther majr players in the PPP agenda f that cuntry, fr example, ther MDBs, DFID, USAID, ther natinal agencies, the United Natins? SECTION III: EFFECTIVENESS OF WORLD BANK GROUP UPSTREAM WORK 86 T be able t answer questins in Sectins 3 5, the cuntry s PPP-related prjects needed t be assessed first ne by ne. The prtfli analysis and the field visits prvided the necessary infrmatin, with the field visits prviding a mre up-t-date and mre detailed infrmatin. Then the findings f the prtfli analysis were cnsidered tgether with the infrmatin cllected during the field visits when answering the belw questins at an aggregate level. Has the Wrld Bank Grup prvided strategic advice t client cuntries in making infrmed decisins abut the nature and level f private sectr invlvement in sectr refrm, the chice between public investment versus PPP, and type f PPP? Is there evidence that this advice taken n bard and knwledge actually delivered? Are there examples f well cnducted Value fr Mney analysis, due diligence applying the Public Sectr Cmparatr Mdel, and s frth? 153

4 COUNTRY CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY T what extent have Wrld Bank Grup interventins 87 and prject cmpnents that targeted the enabling envirnment fr PPPs achieved their stated bjectives; 88 that is, have PPP units taken up their jbs, are the regulatrs functinal, are PPP laws actually used t prcess PPP transactins, and s frth? What were the factrs enabling r preventing the achievement f these bjectives? What can we learn frm cases where the implementatin f upstream measures was particularly successful r failed? Has the Wrld Bank Grup enhanced the public sectr s capability t assess and accunt fr cntingent liability and recurring expenditures related t PPPs? In hw far did cuntry parameters (fr example gvernance issues, enabling envirnment incme level, absrptin capacity, investment climate, and s frth) r sectr parameters (fr example lack f cst recvery, size f market) drive the rle and effectiveness f PPPs? Has the Wrld Bank Grup s upstream supprt achieved its lng term utcmes, that is, helped cuntries t execute PPP transactins? 89 Hw useful did recipients perceive Wrld Bank Grup upstream supprt when implementing subsequent actual PPP transactins? Subsequently, did thse PPPs imprve access t infrastructure and scial services thrugh subsequent PPPs, regardless f Wrld Bank Grup invlvement in the actual PPP transactin? Hw did these PPPs wrk ut; that is, is there evidence that these PPPs cntributed t imprve and inclusive access, quality f service delivery, and increased efficiency? If s, why and why nt? Was failure due t shrtcmings in upstream wrk? Nte: When assessing Wrld Bank Grup supprted prjects, rely n yur assessment f it under Sectin IV. Is there evidence that PPPs have leveraged scarce public sectr resurces thrugh private sectr funds? 90 Is there evidence that PPPs deliver their services in a sustained manner? What can we learn frm successful r failed PPP transactins? SECTION IV: EFFECTIVENESS OF DOWNSTREAM SUPPORT Have PPPs that benefited frm Wrld Bank Grup dwnstream supprt (IFC Advisry Services, IFC Investment Services, Wrld Bank lending r nn-lending r MIGA) cntributed t imprved access t infrastructure and scial services? Have PPPs actually cntributed t imprved and inclusive access, quality f service delivery, and increased efficiency? Did these PPPs leverage public sectr resurces thrugh private sectr funds? If nt, what prevented private investrs t cntribute? 154

5 COUNTRY CASE METHODOLOGY Have these PPPs prvided sustained services ver time, that is, beynd prject clsure/peratinal maturity? Assess what drve success r failure during preparatin, bidding and finance. In cases f fully peratinal PPPs, what factrs enabled/impaired sustainability/lngevity? In case applicable, what were the reasns fr MIGA prjects being cancelled? Hw far did cuntry parameters (fr example the enabling envirnment, the cuntry s incme level, absrptin capacity, investment climate, and s frth) r sectr parameters (fr example, lack f cst recvery, size f market etc.) drive the success f these PPPs? Can any effects beynd the immediate prjects scpe, fr example, at brader sectr level r cuntry level, be bserved? SECTION V: WORK QUALITY AND COORDINATION What were the rles f the different Wrld Bank Grup entities in the cuntry s up and dwnstream wrk, hw was their wrk quality and what their added value r shrtcmings? Were there unique rles f IFC Advisry Services and Wrld Bank (AAA, FBS, and s frth) with regard t advising n transactins, including pipeline management, prject preparatin, bidding and finance? What did the client appreciate mst abut their wrk, what the least? What went right and wrng, and why? Please prvide specific examples f where crdinatin was lacking and what was the result f this in ther wrds, what wuld have happened with better crdinatin? Please refrain frm referring t a general lack f crdinatin. What did the client appreciate mst abut the rle and cntributin f IFC Investment Services, MIGA and Wrld Bank lans with regard t financing PPP transactins? What shuld be imprved? At the cuntry level, has Wrld Bank Grup s PPP agenda been adequately crdinated? Has the Wrld Bank Grup leveraged synergies and explited the cmparative advantages f its varius public and private sectr arms and its prducts? Can crdinatin and cllabratin be fund at the level f specific prjects? If nt, have effrts been crdinated at reginal sectral r strategic level? What can we learn frm successful r failed Wrld Bank Grup crdinatin acrss the varius units cntributing t the PPP agenda? 155

6 COUNTRY CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY Accrding t the Wrld Bank CD, the IFC Head and their key staff, has the Bank Grup been able t deliver a cuntry specific PPP slutin? With the Wrld Bank and IFC Advisry Services being invlved upstream and IFC Investment Services dwnstream, has the management f cnflicts f interest been a ptential r real issue? If s, hw was it handled? Frm a cuntry perspective, is there a need t adjust the Wrld Bank Grup s rganizatinal structures, prcesses, and incentives t better enable a crdinated and effective delivery f PPP targeted activities? Frm the Wrld Bank Grup field ffices perspective, client, financier r cunterpart perspective, is the current rganizatinal set-up, allcatin f skills and resurces, and functins acrss the Wrld Bank Grup with regard t implementing the PPP agenda, and its embedded incentives systems and standards cnducive t an efficient and effective PPP respnse? Lking at bth, upstream and dwnstream wrk, t what extent was crruptin an issue alng the entire value chain f a PPP, that is, frm pipeline develpment, setting f specific technical standards, prject selectin preparatin, bidding, and finance? Is there any evidence that crruptin led t drpping f prjects? Is there any evidence that the lack f cmpetitin had an effect n the risk allcatin? Hw well is the cuntry psitined t address systemic crruptin risk? What did the Wrld Bank Grup d abut addressing crruptin at the systemic as well as prject level? 156