본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

결과 내 검색

동의어 포함

고급검색

인명/단체명

저자정보 상세정보
인명/단체명을 입력하세요.

키워드

  • 대표어

  • 외국어

-

목차보기

Title page 1

Contents 10

Preface 4

Foreword 6

Acknowledgements 8

Reader's guide 15

Abbreviations and acronyms 19

Executive summary 21

1. Overview of the 2023-26 Global Partnership Monitoring Round 23

1.1. Putting collective accountability into action through the Global Partnership monitoring exercise 24

1.2. What the evidence shows: key results from the 2023-26 monitoring exercise 25

1.3. Looking to the future 41

Part I. Drawing on monitoring evidence to drive more effective development co-operation 42

2. Taking a whole-of-society approach, leaving no one behind 43

2.1. Encouragingly high levels of stakeholder engagement are not consistently matched by high-quality consultation processes 45

2.2. The CSO enabling environment could be improved by more predictable funding, protective legal frameworks and greater advocacy 48

2.3. All partners have priorities to address the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalised, but certain groups are still overlooked 51

2.4. Better data is a must to identify, define and track results for the most vulnerable 55

References 58

Notes 61

3. Using and strengthening country systems 63

3.1. Partner country governments continue to reinforce their development planning, but gaps remain in budget transparency and... 65

3.2. Development partners' stagnating use of country results frameworks highlights the need for stronger country statistical systems and... 67

3.3. PFM system quality has improved in key areas, but procurement and budget transparency require further strengthening 71

3.4. Information management systems are broadly in place, but underused, with persistent system challenges and reporting gaps 78

References 80

Notes 84

4. Making development co-operation funding predictable and gender-responsive 86

4.1. Forward-spending visibility of development co-operation shows no improvement, hindering countries' ability to plan and budget 88

4.2. A decline in development co-operation recorded on national budgets is weakening governments' ability to plan and budget for... 91

4.3. Annual predictability of development co-operation is high and increasing 93

4.4. Gender-responsive budgeting is improving, but resourcing and transparency remain challenges 96

References 100

Notes 102

5. Holding each other to account and promoting transparency 104

5.1. Countries' accountability structures are being outpaced by shifting resources, modalities and global crises 106

5.2. Development partners are increasingly reporting information to global systems and standards 112

5.3. Transparency within partner countries shows limited progress by both development partners and partner country governments 117

References 120

Notes 122

6. Engaging the private sector in effective development co-operation 123

6.1. What does the Kampala Principles Assessment measure? 125

6.2. Most partner countries and development partners have policy frameworks for private sector engagement, but opinions on... 126

6.3. Dialogues are organised by partner country governments and development partners, but could be more inclusive and targeted to... 130

6.4. Partner country governments and development partners are investing to differing degrees in the quality of their work with the private sector 132

6.5. Private sector actors can find it challenging to engage with development partners 133

References 135

Notes 136

Part II. Advancing commitments and actions at the country level 137

7. Moving from monitoring to policy through reflection, dialogue and action 138

7.1. The new reflection, dialogue and action phase moves countries from monitoring to policy response 140

7.2. Countries are moving from effectiveness challenges to action in five key areas 142

7.3. Countries are institutionalising accountability and follow-up mechanisms 151

References 154

Notes 155

8. Learning from countries as they move from commitments to practice 156

8.1. Bangladesh 158

8.2. Bhutan 159

8.3. Burkina Faso 161

8.4. Cambodia 163

8.5. Colombia 165

8.6. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) 167

8.7. Dominican Republic 168

8.8. The Gambia 171

8.9. Honduras 172

8.10. Indonesia 175

8.11. Lao PDR 177

8.12. Lesotho 178

8.13. Mozambique 181

8.14. Nepal 182

8.15. Nigeria 183

8.16. Pakistan 185

8.17. Philippines 187

8.18. Sierra Leone 189

8.19. Somalia 191

8.20. Uganda 193

8.21. Yemen 194

8.22. Zambia 196

Notes 199

Annex A. Methodological notes 200

Annex B. The monitoring framework 206

Annex C. Data coverage 209

Tables 14

Table 1.1. The Global Partnership monitoring framework: A snapshot 24

Table 6.1. The Kampala Principles Assessment collects data across four metrics 126

Figures 12

Figure 1.1. Partner country governments engage stakeholders more consistently when developing national plans than in follow-up dialogues 26

Figure 1.2. Perceptions of the CSO enabling environment diverge across stakeholders and effectiveness areas 27

Figure 1.3. The share of development co-operation recorded on national budgets is declining 28

Figure 1.4. Partner countries and development partners are investing in strengthening private sector engagement through policy frameworks... 29

Figure 1.5. National development plans are generally comprehensive, but could improve through better progress reporting and budgeting 30

Figure 1.6. Development partners' use of country results frameworks remains moderate 31

Figure 1.7. PFM system quality and use have room for improvement 32

Figure 1.8. IMS are broadly in place, but not fully operational and reporting is only partial 33

Figure 1.9. Development partners' forward-spending visibility has not improved 34

Figure 1.10. More partner countries have systems in place to track and make gender equality allocations public 35

Figure 1.11. Elements of a quality mutual accountability mechanism are often not in place in partner countries 36

Figure 1.12. Only 63% of development partners make their country strategies publicly available 37

Figure 1.13. Overall transparency of development co-operation is unchanged, highlighting the lack of global improvement since 2018 38

Figure 1.14. Harder-to-reach population groups receive less consistent attention 39

Figure 1.15. Limited data constrains monitoring of progress for the most vulnerable 40

Figure 1.16. Countries making no progress outweigh those making progress on multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring... 41

Figure 2.1. Partner country governments engage stakeholders more consistently when developing national plans than when conducting... 46

Figure 2.2. Perceptions of the CSO enabling environment diverge across stakeholders and effectiveness areas 49

Figure 2.3. Development partners' funding should better reflect CSO priorities and be more predictable, according to CSOs 50

Figure 2.4. Partner country governments' engagement with the most vulnerable and marginalised could be strengthened 52

Figure 2.5. Some population groups receive more consistent attention than others 54

Figure 2.6. Limited data constrains monitoring progress for the most vulnerable 57

Figure 3.1. National development plans are generally comprehensive, but could improve through better progress reporting and budgeting 66

Figure 3.2. Though declining, multilateral partners use partner country results frameworks more than bilateral partners 68

Figure 3.3. Development partners' use of country results frameworks has stagnated, and use of country data and systems is particularly low... 69

Figure 3.4. While all types of development partners align their objectives with country objectives, use of country results indicators, data and... 69

Figure 3.5. Providers' use of partner country PFM systems is modest and declining, driven by low reliance on procurement systems 73

Figure 3.6. DAC members' bilateral untied ODA has fallen slightly since 2017 74

Figure 3.7. Use of PFM systems varies across providers, with MDBs performing best 75

Figure 3.8. Information management systems are broadly in place, but not always fully operational and with partial reporting 78

Figure 4.1. Forward-spending visibility has not improved since 2014 89

Figure 4.2. Countries' receipt of forward expenditure plans for the third year ahead is low from all types of development partner 90

Figure 4.3. The share of development co-operation recorded on national budgets is decreasing 92

Figure 4.4. Annual funding predictability remains high and has improved overall since 2011 94

Figure 4.5. More partner countries have a system in place to track and make gender equality allocations public 97

Figure 4.6. More partner countries match resource allocations to gender equality policies and include them in PFM systems, but progress... 98

Figure 5.1. Elements of a quality mutual accountability mechanism are often not in place in partner countries 108

Figure 5.2. Recognition of roles and responsibilities in partner country policy frameworks varies by type of development actor 109

Figure 5.3. Overall transparency of development co-operation is unchanged 114

Figure 5.4. Quality of reporting to the Creditor Reporting System has improved for around half of the development partners assessed 115

Figure 5.5. The quality of assessed development partners' reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative is declining 116

Figure 5.6. Public availability of development partner country strategies varies across types of partners 118

Figure 6.1. DAC members and UN entities tend to favour global private sector engagement strategies, while MDBs favour country strategies 128

Figure 6.2. Development partners are the most positive about whether private sector engagement is adding value where it is most needed,... 130

Figure 6.3. Partner country governments are most likely to agree that dialogues organised by development partners address issues that are... 132

Figure 6.4. MDBs perform particularly well across key measures of PSE quality 133

Figure 6.5. The private sector finds it difficult to engage in partnerships with development partners 134

Boxes 14

Box 1.1. Assessing SDG indicator 17.16.1 shows that progress towards effective development is slipping 40

Box 2.1. Achieving a whole-of-society approach in risk and fragility assessments 48

Box 2.2. How partner countries engage with youth and children's rights organisations 53

Box 2.3. How Nepal's national framework to leave no one behind identifies the vulnerable and measures progress towards supporting them 56

Box 3.1. Measuring the official SDG indicator 17.15.1 for bilateral development partners 67

Box 3.2. Tracking progress on untying ODA 73

Box 3.3. UNICEF's organisational policies and capacity building promote greater use of PFM systems 75

Box 3.4. Viet Nam's PFM systems have been strengthened through joint government and provider support 77

Box 4.1. Bangladesh's national budgetary framework supports on-budget recording of development co-operation 93

Box 4.2. Enhancing funding predictability through the EU Multiannual Financial Framework 96

Box 4.3. Assessing countries' systems to track financing for gender equality and women's empowerment under SDG 5 97

Box 5.1. How the Philippines builds mutual accountability into its development co-operation framework 110

Box 5.2. Global measures of transparency in development co-operation: The CRS and the IATI 112

Box 6.1. What kinds of providers engage the private sector in their development co-operation? 128

Box 7.1. What did the process look like for the reflection, dialogue and action phase? 141

Box 7.2. How macroeconomic transitions influence dialogue outcomes 151

Infographics 13

Infographic 1. The Global Partnership monitoring framework 207

Annex Tables 14

Table A.1. Countries participating in the 2023-26 round 201

Table A.2. Development partners participating in the 2023-26 round 202

Table C.1. Measurements that are comparable between the 2018 and 2023-26 rounds 210

Annex Figures 13

Figure C.1. Coverage of comparable measurements between the 2018 and 2023-26 rounds 210

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차

권호

기사명 원문보기 기사목차
닫기