Search

The Government of Jordan, the World Bank Group (WBG), and the international community are working towards a paradigm shift in their collective response to the refugee crisis - a holistic approach which stresses the continuum between the humanitarian response and the country’s development agenda. In parallel, Jordan’s implicit social contract by which the state provided citizens with jobs and heavily subsidized public services is evolving. strategic engagement, the WBG will adopt a two-pronged approach aimed at simultaneously addressing Jordan’s immediate needs in view of the fluid and worsening regional situation while keeping a medium and long-term development commitment built on reforming the economy to create the right environment for inclusive, job-creating growth. The first pillar of the Country Partnership Framework (CPF) aims to foster the conditions for stronger private-sector-led growth and better employment opportunities for all.The second pillar of the CPF aims to improve the quality and equity of service delivery, including through private sector solutions.The CPF will implement the new Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Strategy at the country level.The CPF aligns with the Government’s vision Jordan 2025, the Executive Development Plan 2016-2018 (EDP), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).The CPF’s principles of engagement will be selectivity, flexibility, adaptability and partnership. The outlook for 2016 forecasts growth at three percent on account of a growing mining and quarrying sector, some energy investments, and base effect of the tourism and construction sectors, although some downside risks have begun to materialize in early 2016.

Over the past dozen years, policymakers have largely abandoned long-standing popular approaches for addressing risk in agriculture without fully resolving the question of how best to manage the negative consequences of volatile agricultural markets. The article reviews the transition from past policies and describes current approaches that distinguish between the trade-related fiscal consequences of commodity market volatility and the consequences of price and production risks for vulnerable rural households and communities. Current policies rely more heavily on markets, even though markets for risk are incomplete in numerous ways. The benefits and limitations of market-based instruments are examined in the context of risk management strategies, and innovative approaches to extend the reach of risk markets are discussed.

This report explores the potential financing mechanism options that can be employed to catalyze more private sector investment in clean energy (renewable energy and energy efficiency) in the small island developing states (SIDS). Various financial instruments that have been used successfully to date are described and placed in the context of the issues and constraints of the SIDS, with suggested options for discussion and follow up. Green infrastructure finance, as defined in the report, makes the important point that is the combination of financial and nonfinancial interventions and instruments that can make green investments in infrastructure more affordable and less risky to private sponsors, financial markets, and governments. The objective of this report is to identify and assess options that can help increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in SIDS through the adoption and funding of financing mechanisms by SIDS and development partners with special attention given to the role that the private sector can play. Many renewable energy technologies are characterized by high initial capital costs with relatively low operating costs compared to thermal alternatives. By providing an analysis of options for a financing facility to catalyze renewable energy and energy efficiency, this work is intended to inform the discussions among SIDS and development partners interested in actions to stimulate investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. This report summarizes the results of the two stages. The assessment and selection of options identifies a number of measures that will be needed to stimulate increased private sector participation - project sponsors and developers, equity funds, lending institutions - for energy efficiency and renewable energy. The background material reviewed for this report has been summarized in the annexes.

The general principles for credit reporting were issued by the World Bank in September 2011. Since then, the World Bank and the international committee on credit reporting (ICCR) have been leading efforts towards the implementation of the general principles worldwide. This report is one of the concrete outputs of the work following the general principles. It addresses one of the most significant problems that limit the ability of most small and medium enterprises (SMEs) around the world to obtain adequate external financing to underpin their productive activities: information asymmetries. Creditors assess the creditworthiness of credit and loan applicants based on two basic criteria: ones financial capacity or ability to repay a loan, and ones willingness to repay the loan. A credit reporting system s (CRS) basic objective is to address information asymmetries, which is crucial for determining repayment capacity and repayment willingness. Credit reporting can therefore be extremely valuable to creditors for enhanced, fact-based credit risk assessments, and in this sense can also be seen as a tool to facilitate access to financing, including by SMEs. The main objective of this report is therefore to identify actions that can be undertaken by authorities and other relevant policy makers to improve the flow of data and other relevant credit information on SMEs to creditors through CRS. For this purpose, the report first analyses the overall status of credit reporting activities in connection with SMEs.

This note, prepared as background for the G20 submission, explores the potential for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to increase the volume of climate financing by leveraging and intermediating resources, through two main avenues: leveraging shareholder capital through the MDBs non-concessional windows, by raising debt from capital markets to finance climate investment; and mobilizing and 'pooling' concessional flows to support climate investment beyond the MDBs own balance sheets. The note is organized along these two lines, with the aim of providing some insights into the feasibility for MDBs to mobilize resources to leverage a significantly larger volume of climate financing assistance. The next section of this note provides information on how MDBs can support concessional flows to climate investments through pooling of external concessional flows beyond traditional balance-sheet capital. Leveraging shareholder capital and mobilizing and-pooling concessional flows are two potential avenues through which MDBs can leverage and intermediate resources to ultimately increase the volume of climate financing. The experience gained by the MDBs and their clients and donors from implementing these financing arrangements should provide helpful lessons for the development community as it considers how to develop the green climate fund and other future climate change initiatives.

This assessment covers the transparency of monetary policy in the Republic of Indonesia, and in particular, BI's role in the formulation and implementation of this policy. It forms part of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) for Indonesia, which was conducted jointly by the IMF and the World Bank during 2009-2010. The assessment was primarily undertaken during the first FSAP mission in October 2009 with subsequent refinements through written communications with the authorities. The assessment was conducted according to the IMF's code of good practices on transparency in monetary and financial policies, as issued in September 1999, and supporting documents as approved in July 2000. The assessment is primarily based on information available as of October 2009, in particular on the relevant laws and regulations then in force. After receiving a draft version of this assessment, Bank Indonesia (BI) took a number of steps to enhance transparency, and the ratings in some practices have been marked up accordingly. The review also incorporates a wide range of other materials published by the Indonesian authorities, including those on their website and draws extensively on a self-assessment and a response to a questionnaire. In addition, the assessment was informed by discussions held during the FSAP mission with the authorities at a senior level and with various departments and divisions of BI, as well as with representatives of the private financial sector.

Output-Based Aid (OBA) and other results-based financing mechanisms are gaining popularity in the development context for many reasons, in particular, the desire to link scarce public funding with actual results on the ground. But withholding disbursements until the delivery of 'results' or 'outputs' requires that the service providers delivering the results must have access to finance (A2F) to pay for the 'inputs' in the first place. Such finance is not always available or affordable. The purpose of this working paper is to outline some of the key issues related to OBA and A2F. The analysis focuses on the energy, water, and health sectors. Micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME) financing is the main topic; however, OBA is ultimately about poor households affording access to basic services, and many OBA schemes attempt to address A2F for households, so some of these innovations are also described. The working paper is expected to support a consultative process between experts dealing with A2F challenges and experts on OBA. This process should help raise awareness of the OBA approach among potential financiers, and help consider solutions (instruments, partnerships, capacity building) so that OBA and other similar results-based financing mechanisms can be brought to scale and integrated into broader sector policy, where appropriate.

This study provides an overview of Arab official development assistance (ODA) over the past four decades. Trends in volume, composition, and direction are discussed in chapter two and the institutional framework is discussed in chapter three. Over 90 percent of Arab development assistance is provided by three countries: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).