Cargando…
Annual review of development effectiveness. 2008, Shared global challenges.
For the World Bank and its partners, the ever-present test is to deliver results-to lift people out of poverty and promote socially and environmentally sustainable development. Achieving such success in any individual country is increasingly intertwined w.
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Washington, D.C. :
World Bank,
2008.
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Abbreviations; Acknowledgments; Foreword; Executive Summary; Management Comments: Summary; Chairman's Summary: Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE); Evaluation Snapshot in Selected Languages; 1 Introduction; PART I: TRACKING BANK PERFORMANCE; 2 Development Outcomes: Indicators of Performance; Measuring Project Performance: Trends from IEG Monitoring; Figure 2.1 Project Performance Has Improved over the Medium Term; Box 2.1 What Does a Satisfactory Project Look Like? Illustrations of Development Impact; Figure 2.2 Trends in Sectoral Performance
- Table 2.1 Distribution of Project Ratings Moved Up the Scale in FY03-07Project Outcomes in Fiscal 2007 Data; Figure 2.3 Africa's Projects Have Improved Substantially but Still Lag Behind Other Regions; Table 2.2 Disconnect between the Bank's Self-Ratings and IEG Ratings Increased Dramatically in FY07; How It Adds Up: Outcomes of Bank Country Programs; Figure 2.4 CAEs Show Three-Fifths with Outcomes Moderately Satisfactory or Better; Table 2.3 Summary of CAE Ratings, FY98-08; Box 2.2 What Does a Satisfactory Country Program Look Like?
- Figure 2.5 CASCR Reviews Indicate That Bank Programs in MICs Outperform Those in LICsTable 2.4 Summary of CASCR Review Ratings, FY03-08; 3 Underpinning Impact-M & E and Results Management; Monitoring and Evaluation Systems at the Project Level; Figure 3.1 Projects with Higher Outcome Ratings Have Better M & E Ratings; Figure 3.2 M & E Is Rated Modest or Lower in Two-Thirds of ICR Reviews; Box 3.1 M & E Findings and Recommendations in Recent IEG Evaluations; Box 3.2 Armenia Joint Country Portfolio Performance Review; Country-Level M & E: Early Evidence from Results-Based CASs
- Box 3.3 Results Measurement and Monitoring in LICUSManaging Global Programs and Partnerships: An Emerging Agenda; Box 3.4 Use of CAS Results Frameworks in Country Program Management; Improving Our Understanding of Causality: The Use of Impact Evaluations; Figure 3.3 About 70 Percent of Ongoing Evaluations Are Clustered in Five Areas; Figure 3.4 Nearly Two-Thirds of Ongoing Evaluations Are Located in Two Regions; Monitoring Institutional Effectiveness; 4 Lessons and Opportunities; Directions for the Overall Bank Agenda; Practical Lessons for the Near Term
- PART II: SHARED GLOBAL CHALLENGES-LESSONS FROM THE BANK'S EXPERIENCE5 The Challenge of Global Public Goods; Box 5.1 Key Characteristics of Global Public Goods; 6 Using the Bank's Country-Based Model to Foster Global Public Goods: Does It Work?; How It Works in Theory-the Bank's Strategic Setting for Fostering Global Public Goods; Box 6.1 Brazil: A Best Practice in Integrating GPG Themes in Country Strategies; Box 6.2 Emerging Good Practice from the Regions; Country Programs in Practice-from Strategy to Action; Figure 6.1 Bank Expenditures on Main GPG Themes