Skip navigation

Book

Uganda Country Assistance Evaluation, 2001-2007 : Joint IEG/OPEV Country Assistance Evaluation

TARIFFS RISKS FISH STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT ECONOMIC GROWTH PEOPLE VACCINATION POLICY ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION CARBON DIOXIDE FOREST MANAGEMENT CARBON PREVENTION LAWS EXPECTATIONS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SOCIAL RESEARCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BALANCE OF PAYMENTS RESOURCE ALLOCATION LABOR FORCE EMISSIONS HEALTH CARE REVENUES SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT INCENTIVES HEALTH CRIME SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT CONDITIONALITY PUBLIC HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AUDITS LIFE EXPECTANCY RESOURCE USE KNOWLEDGE PRESENT VALUE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IRON CROWDING OUT OIL IMMUNIZATION PATIENT PATIENTS INTERVENTION POPULATION GROWTH SECONDARY SCHOOLS CAPITAL FORMATION OPTIONS NURSES QUOTAS OBSERVATION VIOLENCE DEBT MARKETING ALLOCATIVE EFFICIENCY FORESTRY ECONOMIC POLICIES NATURAL RESOURCES MENTAL HEALTH MORTALITY SUBSIDIES SOCIAL SUPPORT EFFICIENCY FISHING TAX REFORMS LAND USE NUTRITIONAL STATUS PRIMARY SCHOOLS RESOURCES UNEMPLOYMENT EQUITY POTENTIAL INVESTORS ECONOMIC IMPACT DIPHTHERIA RURAL COMMUNITIES RESEARCH CENTERS WORKERS AGED SOCIAL SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT VALUES IMMUNODEFICIENCY HEALTH POLICY CREDIT PURCHASING POWER DIVISION OF LABOR DEFORESTATION CPI DEMAND HEALTH OUTCOMES SUSTAINABLE USE HYGIENE NATIONAL INCOME PUBLIC EXPENDITURES FAMILY PLANNING EXPENDITURES ENVIRONMENTS PROPERTY TAX RATES CHILD NUTRITION MEASUREMENT REFUGEES NUTRITION TRANSACTION COSTS ENVIRONMENT SOIL DEGRADATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK WORKSHOPS WEATHER PATTERNS ECONOMICS TERMS OF TRADE QUALITY OF LIFE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE TAX REVENUE INTERNET FISHERIES WEIGHT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRADE LAND CHILDREN ECONOMIES OF SCALE COMMERCIAL BANKS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE FARMS POPULATION PRESSURES REVENUE INSTITUTIONALIZATION STRATEGY REGISTRATION MEDICINES ENVIRONMENTAL HOSPITALS LABOR MARKETS INTERMEDIARIES WETLANDS HEALTH SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION CONDOMS PRICES ECONOMIES COMPETITION
83
0

Attachments [ 0 ]

There are no files associated with this item.

More Details

Washington, DC: World Bank
Africa | Uganda
2015-10-08T18:12:34Z | 2015-10-08T18:12:34Z | 2009

The World Bank’s assistance strategies showed strong client orientation and were aligned with Uganda’s poverty reduction strategy. The programs were substantially effective in decentralization, public sector reform, growth and economic transformation, education, and water and sanitation. However, more could have been done to help counter the perception of increasing corruption, improve power supply, reduce transport costs, enhance agricultural productivity, and help with family planning and reproductive health. The AfDB’s assistance was also relevant and aligned with the government’s development goals. Its support substantially achieved its objectives for decentralization, public sector finance, growth and economic transformation, improved competitiveness, agriculture, and water and sanitation, as well as education and health. However, there were some shortcomings in the assistance provided for power and roads and in reducing corruption. This report evaluates World Bank and African Development Bank assistance to Uganda during 2001-07. The motivation to undertake a joint evaluation was the shift to a common strategic framework, the Uganda Joint Assistance Strategy (UJAS), to guide the formulation and delivery of their programs. Under a common strategic framework joint evaluation is, in principal, more cost effective than the equivalent separate evaluations, since at least some aspects of the evaluation can be done together. This also helps to reduce government transaction costs. The evaluation discusses the outcome of the support of each bank, rates each independently, noting that the two banks are of different size, capacity, and institutional setting. In addition, the two banks have programs that were not implemented jointly but in parallel, although they regularly engaged with one another as development partners. The outcome ratings for the two institutions are therefore not comparable and should not be used to imply that one institution did ‘better’ than the other.

Comments

(Leave your comments here about this item.)

Item Analytics

Select desired time period