Result of the World Bank Client Survey-2011

The World Bank resident representative
office in Mongolia carried out an assessment survey aimed at evaluating
the efficiency of The World Bank’s assistance programs in Mongolia and
help shape future strategies among its partner organizations. In this
regard, The World Bank asked Economic Policy and Competitiveness
Research Center’s (EPCRC) collaboration in assessing its partner
organizations, which was successfully carried out in June, 2011. The
report is now finalized and we are pleased to present a summary of
overall findings of the report to you. Alternatively you can read the
full version of the report click on here.

The FY 11 Mongolia Country Survey
demonstrates a number of interesting findings related to current
development priorities in the country, where the World Bank fits into
this context, and how views of the Bank’s work in Mongolia have changed
for the better (on the ground sectorial and knowledge work), and for the
worse (collaboration, capacity building, priority alignment) since the
last survey fielded in FY 07.

Overall ratings of the Bank remain in
the very positive range (7 point rating on a 10 point scale). It is
worth reflecting on where ratings have come down, and determine whether
these can be attributed to certain activities, interactions, etc., or
may require further exploration to better understand. At the same time
it is worth looking at where ratings have improved to consider ‘lessons
learned’ and continue moving forward in similar fashion.

The Country Survey suggests that
stakeholders in Mongolia consider governance/government effectiveness
the key development priority in the country. Private sector growth and
mining are also seen as critical elements when considering poverty
reduction and economic growth. The survey suggests a link between
employment opportunity and private sector growth. Throughout the survey
results, there is also a suggestion that infrastructure (basic) is a
critical aspect of development in Mongolia.

Within this context, there is far less
optimism about government’s efforts to take responsibility for
development in the country amongst opinion leaders in Ulaanbaatar, than
outside the city. This is an important finding for the government in
terms of how and where it builds support for its efforts related to
development and growth.

Within this country context, the Bank’s
perceived priorities are not viewed as fully aligned with what
stakeholders think would be most useful for the Bank to prioritize.
While stakeholders believe that the top Bank priorities in the country
are growth, poverty, and government effectiveness, they would like to
see the Bank focus more on, in Mongolia, government effectiveness,
infrastructure, and then to a less degree, a number of areas at about
the same level (private sector growth, education, poverty, growth).

It is important to note that ‘mining for
sustainable development’ is an area that stakeholders do not believe
the Bank should prioritize, necessarily. This finding is not to suggest
that the Bank should NOT prioritize the mining sector; however, it might
want to reflect on how it can better present the Bank’s work in this
area as critical (or at least linked to priorities such as governance,
private sector development, etc.)

The question of Bank emphasis is
particularly interesting because ratings on whether the Bank’s
priorities are aligned with the development priorities of the country
went down significantly from FY 07 (7.2 – 6.5).

The World Bank’s work in sectors

The survey suggests, positively, that
all sectorially related Bank effectiveness ratings have either remained
the same or improved since FY 07. Often in country surveys we see many
of these ratings diminish. Most interesting, ratings for the Bank’s
effectiveness in governance (noted above as the top priority) have
increased significantly since FY 07. In addition, effectiveness ratings
have gone up in priority areas such as private sector development and
infrastructure development.

While “poverty reduction” is not
identified as one of the top development priorities in Mongolia, it is
viewed as an area where the Bank emphasizes (not surprising or
unexpected considering the stated mission of the Bank). Survey results
demonstrate that ratings of whether the Bank’s work reflects its mission
of poverty reduction and whether the Bank is an effective catalyst for
discussion on poverty have gone down since FY 07.

How the Bank operates in Mongolia

Respondents value the Bank’s advice
(policy and economic) most in FY 11, followed by its technical
assistance. Knowledge and financial resources are of much less
importance. ‘Knowledge’ has appeared to have dropped in terms of its
value to stakeholder since FY 07. It would be useful to better
understand how stakeholders distinguish knowledge from advice; is the
former (Bank ‘knowledge’) too cumbersome, too long, too theoretical?
Whereas ‘advice’ which might be considered more real time, solution
oriented, and perhaps, applicable and useful?

Views of how the Bank ‘gets things done’
have diminished since FY 07 in a number of ways worth considering.
Ratings of the Bank’s efficiency, the speed at which it disburses funds
and procurement requirements have all gone down significantly. In an
environment where the World Bank is not the ‘only development player’
these findings are worth further discussion and exploration.

Collaboration and capacity building

The Bank’s ratings on capacity building
across groups (institutional, government, communities, etc) have gone
down significantly since FY 07. If capacity building is a priority for
the Bank in Mongolia, these findings are worth considering further.

Openness, outreach and communication

At a time when the Bank is promoting
openness, a number of interesting findings emerge from this year’s
Country Survey. First, four out of ten respondents identify the Bank’s
greatest weakness (chosen from a list) as “not enough public disclosure
of its work.” Second, civil society itself believes very strongly that
its ‘voice’ needs to play a larger role in the development discourse in
the country (as do those in governments, though to less of a degree).

Third, a top priority for stakeholders related to the Bank improving its efforts on the ground continues to relate to increasing dissemination and discussion of findings from its own analytical work.

Having noted that, more than six out of
ten respondents are not aware of the Bank’s Access to Information
policy, and only a quarter has requested information from the Bank in
the past year (with 95% reporting that if they requested information,
they were able to obtain it.)

In Mongolia, a far greater percentage of
stakeholders have used/use the PIC (nearly four out of ten respondents)
than in most countries where there is a much lower reported rate of
usage/awareness.

Finally, the survey findings demonstrate
a clear shift among stakeholders to internet use for gathering
information (not surprising), although a still significant number of
respondents (more than a quarter) reported that they get their
information about the World Bank activities from workshops and
conferences.

It is useful for the web team to learn
that while usage of the Bank’s websites has increased significantly
since FY 07, there is increased use of the Bank’s website and decreased
use of the country website. This may have an impact on how specific
resources are spent. In addition, while virtually all respondents have
internet access, 75% have used the Bank websites. There is opportunity
for growth.