Staff Views on GAC in the MNA Region MENA Governance Workshop November 30-December 1, 2010 Omer Karasapan, MNADE

A Quick Survey… TTLs, Sector Managers, Managers, Advisers, and a Director or two… 20 in all Focus on: – GAC Issues in MNA that Hinder Development – Where the GAC Agenda Fails – Do We Have the Tools? – Do We Need New Tools to Better Engage with Clients?

GAC Issues in MNA that Hinder Development Overall Governance structures which inhibit transparency and accountability – in varying ways – Lack of Independent Judiciary – Parliaments and media which are largely “directed” – Large public sectors – Strong elements of cronyism…lack of competition and existence of privileged groups – Real weariness in approaching the AC in GAC by staff and counterparts All true, many say but a lot can be done in terms of governance at the sectoral level – corruption is an outcome – strengthen institutions. Also small but significant steps possible in areas like land administration, higher education, etc. Others argue that working in silos will not work and a broader, comprehensive regional agenda/strategy is needed Recent arrivals from other regions, find MNA staff too timid and unwilling to push the agenda

Areas of Failure in Addressing the GAC Agenda The initial focus on anti-corruption and a direct engagement on the GAC agenda did not yield results/backfired It is a varied region, IDA, Conflict, MICs, Oil exporters/importers, etc. understand the variations and devise appropriate approaches to furthering the agenda Expecting quick, quantifiable results was unrealistic – we are dealing with ingrained processes and behaviors and it takes a long time for incentive structures to change Lack of coordination between sectors/units means that lessons and insights are not shared well – this needs to be systematized and a better coordination mechanism established, with the looming PREM/FPD separation things could get worse in terms of coordination Lack of effective coordination with other donors is a challenge

Do we have the tools that we need Overall feeling is that we have the tools that we need – but focus should be on establishing an effective dialogue around development issues with GAC as one of other (quantified) constraints to development outcomes Benchmarking and good analysis on the costs of bad governance and benefits of good practices goes a long way towards convincing governments (David Dollar’s study on cost of business in Chinese cities as an example ) Doing Business, Transparency International, etc. do help in the dialogue forward (others developing their own in Higher Education, Polluting Enterprises, etc. Thematic Supervision which looks at sectors could close the gap between the macro and project level (WBG Pilot) We need to be careful about governments focusing on the mechanics of improving their rankings rather than pushing for real change on the ground – often the Bank is complicit as units focus on getting work. To avoid this ensure that the indicators are substantive - Methodology Matters! Use ICT and New media creatively – remove the human interface as much as possible (e-gov)and get the messages out creatively

Do we have the tools that we need at the project level? At the Project Level : – Staff sometimes caught between nurturing relations with client and the need to react to allegations/indications of problems – Processes not clear, a basic road-map ion how to deal with allegations of corruption is still lacking - at times, management does not respond quickly to requests from country offices and staff are left in limbo – Role of INT still not clear, they can launch their own investigations without informing task teams, etc. - – Good technical skills in drawing up documents and additional resources to hire technically sound consultants to draw up bid documents – Focus on management audits not just financial audits – look at underlying causes not just compliance

How do We Effectively Engage with Clients? Focus on development issues and be demand-driven – if priority is growth and employment start with that and bring in GAC as part of various constraints to greater investment, faster growth, etc. The current focus on service delivery is exactly right Identify and nurture champions in our countries, strengthen their hand with good analysis and institutional strengthening and assist with good communications Dialogue deepens over time and as trust builds counterparts themselves will come to the Bank on GAC issues There is a need for a regional strategy and a move beyond silo approaches – not clear that a focus on sectors/topics will take us far – PREM, in concert with sectors and fiduciary teams could/should focus on this We need to get better at sharing good practices among ourselves and developing networks with other agencies to provide good practices and K-sharing with clients – their focus is replicable experiences that they can adapt to their circumstances.

Some Observations (Ruminations?) on Staff and the GAC Agenda Staff are very much interested in the agenda and want to get it right There are strong views on how to do this and there are readily identifiable differences between operational units and cross- cutting service units These differences are not unbridgeable and a single narrative could/needs to be developed to underline the fact that all are on the same page All agree that changes in the overall governance and incentive structures of our countries are needed and (ultimately) that while a focus on sectors/agencies/projects may not be sufficient to effect this change, they are necessary to the process of change in our countries.