Client and Partner Survery 2003

MALAWI

CLIENT AND PARTNER SURVEY 2003

AFRICA REGION

A REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE WORLD BANK

PREPARED BY

PETER M. MVULA (PhD)

February 22, 2004

1. How well do you think the bank communicates its mission to reduce poverty to various client groups (senior government officials, implementing agency staff, private sector representatives, donors, civil society) in Malawi?

PROJECTS

R1

Not communicated so well. They have good ideas but these are not communicated effectively and they have unstructured plans. Terms of reference for particular programmes or projects though are communicated well.

R4

They do not. For instance, even if the respondent is a manager of a big company, he only learnt about it at some course.

R11

Statement or mission is clear but it is not always communicated well. People involved in Bank projects may get this easily.

R16

Bank has endeavored to advocate for poverty reduction (millennium goals). Even in programs like roads there is poverty emphasis. Roads are to be rural specific so as to reduce poverty. They are communicating well.

DONORS

R2

To me as a fellow donor the mission is communicated well even if most of the information I get it is through informal meetings with the Bank’s country manager. Their strategies though are not very clear and often they are not disseminated quickly enough. People often learn of a World Bank activity when it is almost at the end.

The Bank’s mission is not very clear. We lack general information on what they do. There has been some improvement though since July/August last year. This could be attributed to shortage of staff in the country office which sometimes make them invisible (e.g. Nobody from the Bank showed about at 4 important meeting to which they were invited).

The bank usually does not present itself as one organisation. It has several components. It is thus difficult to pick out its mission. The messages they transmit are based on the behaviours of the various components. Their strategies though can picked up informally here and there.

R17

The Bank does a very good job with government and some public enterprises. Not so well with private sector and civil society. Yet the private sector has views on all sectors since they are direct contact with community. The Bank could do more in this area.

GOVERNMENT

R3

Not so well because they tend to be sectional and not holistic. It is thus difficult to get the poverty agenda accurately.

In general they communicate very well. He has participated where other CASs were discussed before and the mission is always made clear.

R15

They may be communicating well with fellow donors - not so much with other groups. Government being major partner they do communicate well. They have joint meetings but not with civil society.

R19

Communication is good as far as government is concerned. There are constant meetings with treasury for instance. There is also the country profile review.

R21

Bank communicates well with government and not with private sector and civil society.

R24

They do not a good in this area because the tendency is for them to operate as a Bank.

R25

Those that have cared to read, the mission is clear but the question is ways of communicating.

CIVIL SOCIETY

There is a problem. There is minimal communication. There partner is Government and do not care about others e.g. they have never been consulted on aspects of the economy.

The communication is always through government and mission is not clear. Of late though, they have been trying to communicate more effectively.

R10

The main agency that interacts with the Bank is government and the mission is probably communicated well to Government. It is neither known nor clear to other would be partners of the Bank.

R12

In as far as the project they are doing communication is fair and the mission is communicated well. The respondent though was not in position to comment on general mission of poverty reduction.

R13

They communicate poorly. They still talk in traditional ways. They are still telling the same old story and there is nothing new.

R14

They may be communicating well at the government and donor level. This is certainly not the case at the civil society and private sector level.

R18

Most people in government know but many others people/stakeholders do not know much especially on poverty programs. Thus one could say that mission is not communicated so well.

R20

To the Civil Society the Bank is not communicating as much as expected.

R22

Varying degrees of efficiency and transparency. Communicates well with government and not so well with Civil Society. “ When you go to the Bank you do not get the Bank, you get a blank”. They are closed.

R23

Civil society is not quite aware of this. Government may be aware. There is need for the Bank to provide more information.

SUMMARY

From the various views presented above it appears that the mission is communicated well only to various sections of the stakeholders. It’s clear that people from government, some from the donor community and those from Bank projects feel comfortable and the think that the Bank communicates well. The private sector and civil society on the other hand feel that bank is not doing a good job on communicating its mission. Only one respondent from the Government side thought that the Bank is not doing well because they tend to be sectoral and not holistic. This makes it hard to grasp the overall mission.

2a. To what extent do you feel there is agreement between Malawi and the World Bank on development objectives and priorities?

PROJECTS

R1

Bank’s policies are usually not clear and Government is often not clear what it wants. It accepts whatever is offered. The Government does not seem to be in a position to determine what they want and their priorities. Hence, it is difficult to talk of agreement between the two.

R4

As far as he is aware, they two are in total agreement.

R11

There is agreement and dialogue but question is how far Bank gives government all it wants and seriously takes into account suggestions from Government.

R16

The Bank’s country strategy involves stakeholders especially government. The Bank thus knows the views, position and thinking of government. The Bank may even redirect proceedings at some point. But the Bank should be no superior on priorities of the country of the country. The country itself should lead.

DONAR

There is agreement since the Bank supports particular components of the country’s programmes.

R5

Does not see any relationship between these. The Bank’s objectives are unclear and is lenient to the government of Malawi. The Government is always fighting for itself. The Bank thus needs to be technically strong and must give support towards Malawi’s accountability. Communication between programme managers is poor and most of them are not available for meetings.

R6

Malawi has articulated its development goals and objectives in the PRSP. I can only assume that the Bank supports these and does not have contrary goals and objectives.

R17

There is agreement in terms of problems and what needs to be done. They may not agree on strategies because the Bank often comes with its own plans, which often may not be relevant. They do not look at solutions from the country’s perspectives, hence, the lack of ownership.

GOVERNMENT

People in the Bank are obsessed working with the MOF, and ignore other equally important sectors. They seem to be at variance with the Government’s growth strategy and the PRSP. The question is, “is Washington ready to follow us on the strategy?”. The Bank is obsessed with the poor and yet ‘poverty reduction’ is for both the rich and poor. Even PRSP ignored economic growth. They have to buy into the Government’s growth strategy.

R7

They are in agreement since the Bank often frame their objectives from the objectives that are put in place by Government.

R15

Does not know – maybe at the Principal Secretary level.

R19

There is no serious disagreement. An attempt is always made to have the two in harmony.

R21

They are in agreement but the issue is implementation. The Bank pro-poor and they do not look so much on revenue side of the equation.

R24

To some extent there is divergence but they are trying to strike a balance. Government is more on the social side while as the Bank is more on finance and money

R25

Theoretically yes, because when Bank prepares CAS, it’s supposed to take into account the needs of the nation. In practice though, certain noises come in say from Washington or Country Office favoring particular projects or approached e.g. MASAF, decentralization or Privatization. To them, all development should take that root.

CIVIL SOCIETY

There is agreement to the extent that the country is usually dragged to follow what the Bank wants. There is no ownership in most programmes.

Government plans are made in line with demands from the Bank. It’s in the priorities that the two differ.

R10

They do not. If anything there is very little. What Malawi plans is for people and Banks policies are baked elsewhere e.g. ADMARC for Poor people and Government knows this and yet the Bank forces it to commercialize. The Government is forced to take anything Bank says because of the Bank’s muscle.

R12

The Bank is not a person. It speaks through individuals (the Bank does not exist). There may be agreement only because the government is forced to follow Bank’s priorities. The Bank does not listen to the views of others.

R13

Our government usually responds to what the Bank wants. The Bank won’t listen to government. The Government gets confused and is often not clear on its priorities. It is thus seen to be in agreement with the Bank because it is forced to tow the line of the Bank.

R14

Huge disparity! - Every time some mission is announced the government assures us that things are okay. At the end of the mission the Government doesn’t get the funds and no explanation is given.

R18

There is perfect agreement

R20

From the media, I think there is good agreement.

R22

Not very – priorities are often different.

R23

I feel now there is some agreement on development objectives. I however doubt that there is agreement on priorities.

SUMMARY

In general there is a feeling that there is some form of agreement. The agreement is based on the fact that Bank chooses what to support from the country’s priorities. Some people though felt that the Bank bulldozes the objectives and priorities of the country so as to suite their agenda even when the analysis in the country shows otherwise.

2b. Are you familiar with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) process as a way of reaching such agreement?

PROJECTS

Yes, but not involved in the process.

No.

R11

No, Government would know more.

R16

Yes limited extent.

DONORS

Yes

Not familiar since he has been around for a short time.

Yes, very familiar with the CAS process.

R17

Yes

GOVERNMENT

Yes

Yes, very familiar

R15

R19

Yes

R21

No.

R24

Yes.

R25

Yes.

CIVIL SOCIETY

No.

R10

R12

No - have read it

R13

R14

Knows EU and not Bank’s.

R18

Yes

R20

No.

R22

No.

R23

Somewhat.

2c. How effective do you think the Country Assistance (CAS) process is in Malawi?

PROJECTS

The CAS process in Malawi is not very effective because of lack of capacity on the Government side and lack of serious consultation on the part of the Bank.

N/A

R11

N/A

R16

It is not effective and there is need for improvement. Only senior people are invited (these usually come late and are not serious). They should get people to a quite place with little interference for consultation.

DONORS

Not very effective since the bank does not consult widely

Has not been here long enough and thus he does not know.

It is very effective because there are usually very elaborate and extensive consultations.

R17

It proved a useful tool in as far as getting consensus in the formal system. They should extend consultation to beneficiaries i.e. rural poor.

GOVERNMENT

It is not effective. It’s a question of ownership. Under normal circumstance this should be a GOM/WB document. Both the World Bank boss and IMF boss stress that countries must lead the show. But the sectoral guys that come and work on these things behave otherwise. The recommendation is that their boys should not dominate. This process should be seen as joint effort.

Not very effective at the process of consultations they are often left out. They are only told of the strategies at the end of the process. This has previously been pointed out to the Bank but they are fond of imposing things.

R19

Participated in CAS a while ago and thought that the process was effective since there were ample consultations.