Partner Country Indicators¶

Every indicator partner countries report on, grouped by dimension and component.

Scores run from 0 to 1 and are shown as percentages unless noted. Composite indicators are the average of the sub-indicators listed beneath them. The official definition of each indicator is at the foot of this page.

Dimension 1 — Whole-of-Society¶

1.1 Engagement and Dialogue¶

ID	Label	Scale
1.1.C	Engagement and Dialogue (composite of 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3)	0–1
1.1.1	Stakeholder Engagement in NDS Preparation	0–1
1.1.2	Stakeholder Dialogue on Development Priorities	0–1
1.1.3	Stakeholder Engagement in Joint Accountability Assessments	0–1

1.2 Parliamentary Oversight¶

ID	Label	Scale
1.2.C	Parliamentary Oversight (composite of 1.2.1, 1.2.2)	0–1
1.2.1	Reporting to Parliament on Development Co-operation	0–1
1.2.2	Development Co-operation Recorded on National Budget	0–1

1.3 Enabling Environment for Civil Society¶

ID	Label	Scale
1.3.1	CSO Enabling Environment (averaged across government, CSO, and DP perspectives)	0–1

Dimension 2 — State and Use of Country Systems¶

2.1 Planning¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.1.1	Quality of National Development Strategies	0–1

2.2 Respect for Country Policy Space¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.2.1	Development Partner Use of Country Results Frameworks (SDG 17.15.1)	0–1

2.3 Public Financial Management¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.3.1	Quality of PFM Systems (PEFA)	1–4 → normalised 0–1
2.3.2	Strengthening of PFM Systems	−1 to 1
2.3.3	Use of Country PFM Systems by Development Partners	0–1

2.4 National Budget¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.4.1.1	Annual Predictability of Development Co-operation	0–1
2.4.1.2	Medium-term Predictability of Development Co-operation	0–1
2.4.2	Development Co-operation Recorded on National Budget	0–1

2.5 Gender Budgeting¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.5.1	Gender Budgeting (SDG 5.c.1)	0–3 → normalised 0–1

2.6 Accountability Mechanisms¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.6.1	Accountability Mechanisms	0–5 elements → normalised 0–1

2.7 Information Management¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.7.1	Information Management Systems	0–1
2.7.2	Development Partner Reporting to Information Management Systems	0–1

2.8 Procurement¶

ID	Label	Scale
2.8.1	Aid is Untied	0–1

Dimension 3 — Transparency¶

3.1 Countries' Action¶

ID	Label	Scale
3.1.1	Countries' Transparency Action	0–1

Dimension 4 — Leaving No One Behind¶

4.1 Consultation¶

ID	Label	Scale
4.1.C	Consultation of Vulnerable Groups (composite of 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3)	0–1
4.1.1	Engagement of Vulnerable Groups in NDS Preparation	0–1
4.1.2	Engagement of Vulnerable Groups in Development Dialogue	0–1
4.1.3	Engagement of Vulnerable Groups in Joint Assessments	0–1

4.2 Targets and Results¶

ID	Label	Scale
4.2.C	Targets and Results for Vulnerable Groups (composite of 4.2.1, 4.2.2)	0–1
4.2.1	NDS Development Priorities for Vulnerable Groups	0–1
4.2.2	Disaggregated Targets and Results Indicators in NDS	0–1

4.3 Data and Statistics¶

ID	Label	Scale
4.3.C	Data and Statistics for LNOB (composite of 4.3.1, 4.3.2)	0–1
4.3.1	Data-based Assessments Inform National Development Plans	0–1
4.3.2	Disaggregated Data Available to Monitor Progress	0–1

Official definitions¶

The description and interpretation of each partner country indicator, as held in the Global Database maintained by the GPEDC Joint Support Team. This is the wording to cite; the shorter text shown beside a score in the portal is a summary of it.

Dimension 1 — Whole-of-Society¶

1.1.1 — Engagement in the preparation of the national development strategy (countries with a national development strategy): Partner countries report on stakeholder involvement in the preparation of the national development strategy/plan, characterising participation as non-existent, consultative, or participatory [1]. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six). A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.
1.1.2 — Engagement in dialogues on development priorities and results (countries with a dialogue): Partner countries report on stakeholder involvement in dialogues on development priorities and results based on national development strategies/plans [and/or its progress reports] [1]. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six). A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.
1.1.3 — Engagement in mutual accountability assessments towards targets for development co-operation (countries with mutual accountability assessments): Partner countries report on stakeholder involvement in mutual accountability assessments with development partners on development co-operation targets in the last three years [2]. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six). A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.
1.1.4 — Extent of engagement with a diversity of stakeholders in the preparation of development partners' country-level strategies (DPs with a country-level strategy): Development partners report on the participation of partner country stakeholders in the preparation of their country strategy or partnership framework [3]. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six). The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.
1.1.C — Extent of engagement and dialogue with a diversity of stakeholders in development planning and accountability mechanisms: It describes the extent of engagement and dialogue with a diversity of stakeholder groups in development planning and accountability mechanisms in a country. The higher the score the higher is the diversity of stakeholders engaged. This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D1_1_1, D1_1_2 and D1_1_3 . This value is only available if at least one element is available (when one or two elements are missing, they are treated as 0 in the computation).
1.2.1 — Regular provision of information on development co-operation to parliament: Partner countries report on whether they provide development co-operation information to parliaments and at which frequency, choosing among “once (or more than once a year)”, “once every two years” or “once every three (or more) years”. A score of 0 indicates that the government did not report to parliament. A value between zero and one indicates that the government reported to parliament but information on the frequency is not available or that a frequency of less than once a year was reported. A score of 1 indicates that the government reported to parliament frequently, namely once or more than once a year.
1.2.2 — Share of development co-operation recorded on national budget: Partner countries report on the amount of development co-operation recorded in the annual budget, and each development partner reports on its development co-operation flows scheduled to be disbursed to the public sector. The indicator describes the share of development co-operation flows scheduled by development partners that are recorded on the partner country’s national budget and are, thus, subject to parliamentary oversight as part of the budget approval. The score offers insight into how – together – they facilitate domestic oversight of development co-operation.
1.2.C — Extent of parliamentary oversight on development co-operation: It describes the extent of parliamentary oversight on development co-operation, based on whether and the frequency at which information on development co-operation is provided to parliaments by governments, and the share of development co-operation flows recorded on budget. This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D1_2_1 and D1_2_2. The value is available only if both elements D1_2_1 and D1_2_2 are available.

Dimension 2 — State and Use of Country Systems¶

2.1.1 — Quality of national development strategies and results frameworks: Partner countries answer 23 questions reporting on 11 elements indicated below. The overall score captures the overall quality of the national development strategy as average performance across the 11 elements. Countries without a national development strategy receive a score of 0.
2.1.1.Q1 — Existence of a national development plan/strategy: It indicates whether a national development plan or strategy exists (score of 1) or does not exist (score of 0). A score of 0 precludes the availability of elements 2-11.
2.1.1.Q2 — Extent of consultation with different stakeholders (countries with a national development strategy): Partner countries report on stakeholder involvement in the preparation of the national development strategy/plan, characterizing participation as either non-existent, consultative, or a participatory process. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six) [1]. A higher score indicates greater diversity in the stakeholders engaged.
2.1.1.Q3 — Public availability of strategy (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates whether the national development plan or strategy is publicly available online (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
2.1.1.Q4 — Comprehensiveness of national development plan/strategy (priorities, targets and results indicators) (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates the degree of comprehensiveness of the national development plan or strategy. A higher value signifies that the plan is more comprehensive in terms of including development priorities, targets, and results indicators.
2.1.1.Q5 — Reference to SDGs in the national development plan/strategy (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates whether the national development plan or strategy references the SDGs at any level (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
2.1.1.Q6 — Alignment of sector and subnational strategies with the national development plan/strategy (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates the extent to which sectoral and subnational strategies align with the national development plan. A score closer to 1 indicates stronger alignment.
2.1.1.Q7 — Existence and features of progress reports (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates the existence, the public availability, and the frequency of progress reports on the implementation of the plan/strategy . A score of 0 indicates the absence of progress reports. As the score approaches 1, it indicates both the public availability (online) of the progress report and an increased frequency of reporting.
2.1.1.Q8 — Preparation of progress reports (involvement and responsibility of administrative units) (countries with progress report of national development strategy): It indicates the degree of government engagement and coordination in the reporting process. A low score suggests fragmented responsibilities and uncoordinated reports from various government units. A high score reflects a higher level of coordination, resulting in a more streamlined progress report.
2.1.1.Q9 — Reliance on national statistical system to report on results indicators (countries with a national development strategy that defines results indicators): Scores between 0 and 1 indicate different degrees of data availability (for most/some/very few results indicators) and different degrees of timeliness, regularity, and accuracy of data from the national statistical system.
2.1.1.Q10 — Extent of inclusion of indicative budget and information on public expenditure decision (countries with a national development strategy): It is based on two yes-or-no factors: (1) whether the plan includes indicative budget or costing information, and (2) whether this information is used to inform the annual budget and the medium-term fiscal or expenditure framework. A score of 0 indicates that neither condition is met, a score of 0.5 indicates that the plan includes indicative budget information, but it is not used, and a score of 1 indicates that the plan includes budget or costing information which is actively used to inform both the annual budget and the medium-term fiscal or expenditure framework.
2.1.1.Q11 — Extent to which the national development plan/strategy informs dialogue with stakeholders (countries with a national development strategy): Scores between 0 and 1 indicate different degrees of use of the national development plan or strategy to inform dialogue with different stakeholder groups, including to agree on priority sectors/results by stakeholder group, to identify financing gaps or to monitor country progress.
2.2.1 — Extent to which development partners use country-owned results frameworks and planning tools for developing their country-level interventions: The score describes development partners’ average use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools in a partner country. This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D2_2_1_O, D2_2_1_R and D2_2_1_D. It corresponds to the value of SDG indicator 17.15.1. This value is only available if all the three elements are available.
2.2.1.D — Share of results indicators monitored using data from government monitoring systems and statistics: Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, the number of results indicators that will be reported using data from government monitoring and national statistical systems. The measurement is obtained by dividing such number by the total number of results indicators defined in the project/programme. A higher score indicates greater use of data from the national statistical system.
2.2.1.O — Share of interventions with objectives drawn from country-owned results frameworks: Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, if the source of project objectives is drawn from country-owned results frameworks or planning tools. The measurement is obtained by dividing the number of projects/programmes with objectives drawn from country-owned results frameworks or planning tools by the total number of projects. A higher score indicates greater alignment between project objectives and objectives defined in government planning tools.
2.2.1.R — Share of results indicators drawn from country-owned results frameworks: Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, the number of results indicators defined in the project/programme and, out of them, the number of results indicators drawn from existing government results frameworks. The measurement is obtained by dividing the latter number by the total number of results indicators defined in the project/programme. A higher score indicates greater alignment between project results indicators and results indicators defined in country-owned results frameworks.
2.3.1.PI011 — PI 1.1 Budget - Aggregate expenditure outturn: It measures the extent to which aggregate budget expenditure outturn reflects the amount originally approved, as defined in government budget documentation and fiscal reports.
2.3.1.PI021 — PI 2.1 Budget - Expenditure composition outturn by function: It measures the extent to which reallocations between the main budget categories during execution have contributed to variance in expenditure composition.
2.3.1.PI041 — PI 4.1 Budget - Budget classification: It assesses the extent to which the government budget and accounts classification is consistent with international standards.
2.3.1.PI091 — PI 9.1 Budget - Public access to fiscal information: It assesses the comprehensiveness of fiscal information available to the public based on specified elements of information to which public access is considered critical.
2.3.1.PI183 — PI 18.3 Budget - Timing of legislative budget approval: It assesses the timeliness of the scrutiny process in terms of the legislature’s ability to approve the budget before the start of the new fiscal year. The deadline is important so that budgetary units know at the beginning of the fiscal year what resources they will have at their disposal for service delivery.
2.3.1.PI242 — PI 24.2 Procurement - Procurement methods: It analyses the percentage of the total value of contracts awarded with and without competition. A good procurement system ensures that procurement uses competitive methods, except low-value procurement under an established and appropriate threshold.
2.3.1.PI261 — PI 26.1 Audit - Coverage of internal audit: It assesses the extent to which government entities are subject to internal audit. This is measured as the proportion of total planned expenditure or revenue collection of the entities covered by annual audit activities, whether substantive audit work (including audit reports) is carried out.
2.3.1.PI291 — PI 29.1 Financial reporting - Completeness of annual financial reports: It assesses the extent to which annual financial statements are complete, timely, and consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and standards. This is crucial for accountability and transparency in the PFM system.
2.3.1.PI301 — PI 30.1 Audit - Audit coverage and standards (external): It assesses key elements of external audit in terms of the scope and coverage of audit, as well as adherence to auditing standards. Reliable and extensive external audit is an essential requirement for ensuring accountability and creating transparency in the use of public funds.
2.3.2 — Change in quality of PFM system: It describes whether a country has experienced an ‘Improvement, ‘No change’ or a ‘Decline’ in the quality of their PFM systems, based on the comparison between two most recent PEFA assessments available for the country. It is calculated using all 9 PEFA elements indicated above.
2.3.3 — Extent of use of PFM systems when channelling funding to the public sector: The score describes development partners’ average use of PFM systems in a partner country. It is calculated as average of the use of partner country PFM systems when channelling development co-operation funding to the public sector, across four elements (budget execution, financial reporting, auditing procedures, and procurement systems). This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D2_3_3_e, D2_3_3_f, D2_3_3_a , and D2_3_3_p.
2.3.3.a — Share of development co-operation that used auditing procedures: It represents the share of funds for which development partners rely on the audit opinions, issued by the country’s supreme audit institution, in the government’s normal financial reporting and they do not place additional auditing requirements on governments.
2.3.3.e — Share of development co-operation that used budget execution procedures: It indicates the share of funds managed according to the national budgeting procedures established in the general legislation and implemented by the government in the partner countries. This means that programmes supported by development partners are subject to normal country budgetary execution procedures, namely procedures for authorisation, approval and payment.
2.3.3.f — Share of development co-operation that used financial reporting procedures: It indicates the share of funds for which development partners do not impose additional requirements on governments for financial reporting.
2.3.3.p — Share of development co-operation that used procurement systems: It represents the share of funds managed according to the national procurement procedures as they were established in the general legislation and implemented by the partner country government. For these funds, development partners do not make additional, or special, requirements on governments for the procurement of works, goods and services.
2.4.1.1 — Annual predictability – proportion of funding disbursed within the same year for which it was scheduled to be disbursed: It describes the proportion of funds disbursed to governments within the fiscal year for which the disbursement was scheduled to be disbursed. A score of 1 indicates that actual disbursements are fully consistent with the scheduled disbursements. Lower values describe deviations (either over- or under- disbursements) between actual and scheduled disbursements. Such deviations can impact the government’s ability to implement its development efforts as planned as well as DPs’ implementation of projects on the ground. The closer to 0, the larger the deviations.
2.4.1.2 — Medium-term predictability – proportion of development partners for which the government has received forward spending plans (1-3 prospective years average): It describes the proportion of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans (on average across three consecutive years). It is the average of the values obtained for each year. The closer to 1, the larger the share of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans over a three-year period. This value is only available if all the three elements are available.
2.4.1.2.F1 — Proportion of development partners for which the government has received forward spending plans (1 prospective year): It describes the proportion of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for one year ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for one year ahead.
2.4.1.2.F2 — Proportion of development partners for which the government has received forward spending plans (2 prospective years): It describes the proportion of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for two years ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for two years ahead.
2.4.1.2.F3 — Proportion of development partners for which the government has received forward spending plans (3 prospective years): It describes the proportion of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for three years ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of DPs for which a PC has received forward spending plans for three years ahead.
2.4.2 — Share of development co-operation recorded on national budget: The score describes the average share of DPs' funds that are included in the national budget of the partner country. The closer to 1, the higher the proportion of funds recorded on the national budget. Performance concerning recording of development co-operation on budget can be attributed to the efforts of both partner country governments and their development partners. The score offers insight into how – together – they facilitate the inclusion of information in national budget.
2.5.1 — The country has a system in place to track and make public budget allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment: It describes, based on the fulfilment of three criteria, whether the country has a system in place to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. The country is classified as follows: “fully meets requirements”, when meets three criteria (score of 3); it is classified as “approaches requirements” when it meets two criteria or one criterion (score of 2 or 1); it is classified as “does not meet the requirements”, when it does not meet any of the three criteria (score of 0).
2.5.1.C1 — Aspects of public expenditure are reflected in policies and/or programmes and their resource allocations: It indicates whether the country meets (1) or does not meet (0) the criteria.
2.5.1.C2 — Public Financial Management system promotes gender-related, or gender-responsive goals: It indicates whether the country meets (1) or does not meet (0) the criteria.
2.5.1.C3 — Allocations for gender equality and women's empowerment are made public: It indicates whether the country meets (1) or does not meet (0) the criteria.
2.6.1 — The country has inclusive, regular, transparent, results-focused accountability mechanisms captured in a policy framework: This measurement indicates whether a country has an inclusive, regular, transparent, results-focused accountability mechanism captured in a policy framework. It is defined over a range of zero and five [0, 5], which correspond to the sum of the values of the following elements: D2_6_1_E½/¾/5. A country is considered to have a functional accountability mechanism if at least four out of the five elements are in place, indicated by a score of 4 or higher.
2.6.1.E1 — Comprehensive policy framework for development co-operation: It indicates whether a policy framework for development co-operation is in place which provides guidance for at least bilateral and multilateral partners (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
2.6.1.E2 — Country-level targets for government and development partners: It indicates whether country-level targets specific to different types of development actors are in place (score of 1) or not (score of 0). A score of 0 precludes the availability of the other elements (E3-E5).
2.6.1.E3 — Regular mutual accountability assessments of progress towards country-level targets for government and development partners (countries with country-level targets): It indicates whether regular mutual accountability assessments of progress towards country-level targets exist (score of 1) or not (score of 0). This value is available only if country-level targets are in place (D2_6_1_E2 =1).
2.6.1.E4 — Inclusive assessments (countries with mutual accountability assessments): It indicates whether regular mutual accountability assessments of progress are inclusive (score of 1) or not (score of 0). This value is available only if country-level targets and mutual accountability assessments of progress are in place (D2_6_1_E2 =1 and D2_6_1_E3=1).
2.6.1.E5 — Timely and public availability of assessment results (countries with mutual accountability assessments): It indicates whether regular mutual accountability assessments of progress are timely and publicly available (score of 1) or not (score of 0). This value is available only if country-level targets and mutual accountability assessments of progress are in place (D2_6_1_E2 =1 and D2_6_1_E3=1 ).
2.7.1 — Comprehensiveness of information management system for development co-operation: This measurement indicates the comprehensiveness of a country’s information management system (IMS). It is defined over a range of zero to one [0, 1]. The closer to 1 the more comprehensive is the information management system. It builds on seven sub-measurements elements D2_7_1_S/C/D1/D2/D3/D4/F1.
2.7.1.C — Information management system operational (countries with IMS): It indicates whether such system is operational. This value is available only if there is an information management system in place (D2_7_1_S=1).
2.7.1.D1 — Uses of information gathered (countries with operational IMS): It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates a higher level of information usage across a variety of purposes. This value is available only if there is an operational information management system in place (D2_7_1_C=1).
2.7.1.D2 — Types of development partners covered (countries with operational IMS): It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates broader coverage of different types of development partners within the information management system. This value is available only if there is an operational information management system in place (D2_7_1_C=1).
2.7.1.D3 — Types of development co-operation flows covered (countries with operational IMS): It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates broader coverage of different types of development flows within the information management system. This value is available only if there is an operational information management system in place (D2_7_1_C=1).
2.7.1.D4 — Type of project/programme information recorded (countries with operational IMS): It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates a higher level of detail in the project or programme information recorded by the system. This value is available only if there is an operational information management system in place (D2_7_1_C=1).
2.7.1.F1 — Frequency of reporting requested of development partners: It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score closer to 1 indicates higher frequency of reporting requested of development partners.
2.7.1.S — Information management system (IMS) in place: It indicates whether an information system is in place (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
2.7.2 — Extent to which development partners report to the information management system: This measurement describes the extent to which development partners report as requested to a country’s information management system. It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1, where a higher value indicates greater compliance with both the required information and the reporting frequency. A score of 0 indicates that, while an operational information management system is in place, it is not utilised by the DPs. This value is only available if there is an operational information management system in the country.
2.7.2.F — Proportion of development partners that report to the system at the requested frequency: It indicates the proportion of DPs that the government has indicated as reporting to the information management system at the requested frequency, relative to the total number of development partners that report to the information management system of the country, as reported by the national coordinator.
2.7.2.P — Proportion of development partners that provide the information requested: It indicates the proportion of DPs that the government has indicated as reporting the requested information to the information management system, relative to the total number of development partners that report to the information management system of the country, as reported by the national coordinator.
2.7.2.R — Proportion of development partners that report to the information management system: It indicates the proportion of development partners that the government has indicated as reporting to the information management system, relative to the total number of development partners operating in the country, as reported by the national coordinator.
2.8.1 — Share of untied Official Development Assistance (OECD Stats): It indicates the share of total commitments to the country reported by development partners as untied, meaning they are not restricted by conditions requiring the recipient to purchase goods or services from the donor country. The data is sourced from OECD Statistics and includes all OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members that reported for the country, regardless of their participation in the GPEDC monitoring exercise.

Dimension 3 — Transparency¶

3.1.1 — Extent to which the government makes publicly available information on development co-operation: This measurement represents the average performance across four binary sub-measurements (D3_1_A½/¾) related to the public [online] availability of various types of information on development co-operation. This value is only available if at least two of the binary sub-measurements (D3_1_A½/¾) are available (if one or two elements are missing, they are treated as 0 in the computation).
3.1.A1 — National development plan/strategy (countries with a national development plan): It indicates whether the plan/strategy is publicly available online (score of 1) or not available (score of 0).
3.1.A2 — Progress reports on the national development plan/strategy (countries with a progress report): It indicates whether progress reports are publicly available online (score of 1) or not available (score of 0).
3.1.A3 — Mutual accountability assessments towards targets for development co-operation (countries with a mutual accountability assessment): It indicates whether reports on mutual accountability assessments are publicly available online (score of 1) or not available (score of 0).
3.1.A4 — Information on development co-operation: It indicates whether the information on development co-operation is publicly available online (score of 1) or not available (score of 0).
3.2.2 — Proportion of development partners that make publicly available their country-level strategies: This measurement represents the proportion of development partners that publicly share their country-level strategy online, relative to the total number of development partners with a strategy in place in the country.

Dimension 4 — Leaving No One Behind¶

4.1.1 — Consultation in the preparation of the national development strategy (countries with a national development strategy): It reflects the average performance of three binary sub-measurements related to the consultation process during the preparation of the national development strategy (D4_1_1_g_w/y/v). A score closer to 1 indicates more extensive inclusion of various population groups in the development of the plan/strategy.
4.1.1.g.v — CSOs representing vulnerable and marginalised: It indicates whether consultation with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0). A score of 1 indicates that civil society organisations (CSOs) representing at least one vulnerable or marginalised group (relevant to the country) have been consulted. The possible groups are the following: the poorest, the elderly, people with disability, people in disadvantaged geographical areas, and population vulnerable to climate change. In some countries, additional groups such as ethnic minorities, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, asylum seekers, refugees, and LGBTQ+ individuals may also be relevant.
4.1.1.g.w — CSOs representing women and girls: It indicates whether consultation with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0).
4.1.1.g.y — CSOs representing youth and children: It indicates whether consultation with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0).
4.1.2 — Dialogue on development priorities and results (countries with a dialogue): It reflects the average performance of three binary sub-measurements related to the dialogue on development priorities and results (D4_1_2_g_w/y/v). A score closer to 1 indicates more extensive inclusion of various population groups in such dialogue.
4.1.2.g.v — CSOs representing vulnerable and marginalised: It indicates whether dialogue with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0). A score of 1 indicates that civil society organisations (CSOs) representing at least one vulnerable or marginalised group (relevant to the country) has been involved in the dialogue. The possible groups are the following: the poorest, the elderly, people with disability, people in disadvantaged geographical areas, and population vulnerable to climate change. In some countries, additional groups such as ethnic minorities, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, asylum seekers, refugees, and LGBTQ+ individuals may also be relevant.
4.1.2.g.w — CSOs representing women and girls: It indicates whether dialogue with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0).
4.1.2.g.y — CSOs representing youth and children: It indicates whether dialogue with such CSOs took place (score of 1) or did not take place (score of 0).
4.1.3 — Mutual accountability assessments towards targets for development co-operation (countries with mutual accountability assessments): It reflects the average performance of three binary sub-measurements related to engagement in mutual accountability assessments towards targets for development co-operation (D4_2_3_g_w/y/v.) A score closer to 1 indicates more extensive inclusion of various population groups in such assessments.
4.1.3.g.v — CSOs representing vulnerable and marginalised: It indicates whether mutual accountability assessments involved such CSOs (score of 1) or not (score of 0). A score of 1 indicates that civil society organisations (CSOs) representing at least one vulnerable or marginalised group (relevant to the country) have been involved in the mutual accountability assessments. The possible groups are the following: the poorest, the elderly, people with disability, people in disadvantaged geographical areas, and population vulnerable to climate change. In some countries, additional groups such as ethnic minorities, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, asylum seekers, refugees, and LGBTQ+ individuals may also be relevant.
4.1.3.g.w — CSOs representing women and girls: It indicates whether mutual accountability assessments involved such CSOs (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
4.1.3.g.y — CSOs representing youth and children: It indicates whether mutual accountability assessments involved such CSOs (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
4.1.4 — Extent of development partners’ consultation with a diversity of population groups in the preparation of country-level strategies: This measurement reflects the degree of consultation as the average of elements D4_1_4_g_w/y/v. A score closer to 1 indicates more extensive engagement with a diversity of population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised groups, in development partners’ country-level strategies.
4.1.4.g.v — Proportion of development partners that consulted CSOs representing vulnerable and marginalised: This measurement indicates the proportion of development partners that have consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.1.4.g.w — Proportion of development partners that consulted CSOs representing women and girls: This measurement indicates the proportion of development partners that have consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.1.4.g.y — Proportion of development partners that consulted CSOs representing youth and children: This measurement indicates the proportion of development partners that have consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.1.C — Extent of consultation, engagement, and dialogue with a diversity of population groups: This measurement describes the extent of consultation, engagement, and dialogue with a diversity of population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised groups, in development planning and accountability mechanisms. It is the average of elements D4_1_½/3. This value is only available if at least two elements are available (if one element is missing, it is treated as 0 in the computation).
4.2.1 — Development priorities (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates whether development priorities are included (score of 1) or not included (score of 0) for a diversity of population groups.
4.2.1.g.v — Vulnerable and marginalised: It indicates whether development priorities are included (score of 1) or not included (score of 0) for vulnerable and marginalised groups.
4.2.1.g.w — Women and girls: It indicates whether development priorities are included (score of 1) or not included (score of 0) for women and girls.
4.2.1.g.y — Youth and children: It indicates whether development priorities are included (score of 1) or not included (score of 0) for youth and children.
4.2.2 — Disaggregated targets and results indicators (countries with a national development strategy): It indicates whether disaggregated targets and results indicators are included (score of 1) or not included (score of 0) for a diversity of population groups. A value closer to 1 indicates that the targets and result indicators in the plan/strategy are disaggregated for a diversity of population groups.
4.2.3 — Extent of inclusion of development priorities for a diversity of population groups in development partners’ country-level strategies: This measurement reflects the degree of inclusion as the average of elements D4_2_3_g_w/y/v. A score closer to 1 indicates the inclusion of development priorities for a greater number of different population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised groups.
4.2.3.g.v — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for vulnerable and marginalised: It indicates the proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for vulnerable and marginalised groups, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.2.3.g.w — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for women and girls: It indicates the proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for women and girls, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.2.3.g.y — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for youth and children: It indicates the proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for youth and children, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country.
4.2.4 — Proportion of development partners’ projects/programmes that use distributional analysis to define targets and results indicators for beneficiaries: This measurement indicates the proportion of development partners' projects or programmes for which distributional analysis or other data-driven methods have been used to define targets and results indicators for beneficiaries, relative to the total number of relevant projects or programmes. A higher value signifies that a greater share of projects relies on data-driven analysis.
4.2.C — Extent of inclusion of development priorities, targets and results indicators for a diversity of population groups: This measurement is the average of elements D4_2_1 and D4_2_2. A value closer to 1 indicates a more comprehensive definition of development priorities, targets, and result indicators for different population groups. This value is only available if both elements are available.
4.3.1 — Existence and comprehensiveness of a data-based assessment to identify most vulnerable: It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score of 0 indicates the absence of an official data-driven assessment to identify populations at risk of being left behind or the absence of a national development strategy. As the value approaches 1, it signifies that a more comprehensive and recent official assessment is available and publicly accessible.
4.3.2 — Availability of disaggregated data and statistics to monitor progress on targets and results indicators (countries with a national development strategy that defines targets and results indicators): It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1. A score of 0 indicates that there is no disaggregated information available to monitor progress on results indicators. As the value approaches 1, it reflects a higher availability of a broad range of disaggregated data, covering multiple demographic and economic criteria, to monitor progress on these indicators.
4.3.3 — Proportion of development partners’ country-level strategies informed by data-based assessments: It indicates the proportion of development partners' country-level strategies informed by data-based assessments, relative to the total number of development partners that have a strategy in the country. A value closer to 1 signifies a greater extent to which development partners use data-driven assessments to identify populations at risk of being left behind.
4.3.C — Extent of availability of data and statistics in support of the identification of the most vulnerable: This measurement describes the degree to which data and statistics are available and utilised to identify the most vulnerable and marginalised population groups, as well as to monitor progress on results indicators for various population groups. It is the average of elements D_4_3_1 and D_4_3_2. This value is only available if both elements are available.

Other¶

K1.1.1.r — Existence of policies or strategies that articulate how the private sector should be engaged in development co-operation: It indicates whether the national government has a PSEDC-related guidance in place (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
K1.1.1.rp — Proportion of development partners with policies or strategies that articulate how the private sector should be engaged in development co-operation: It represents the proportion of development partners in the partner country that have a PSEDC-related strategy in place.
K1.1.2.r — Comprehensiveness of policy/strategy: It indicates the degree of comprehensiveness of the PSEDC-related policy or strategy. A higher value signifies that the guidance is more comprehensive in terms of including development priorities, rationale, and responsibilities.
K1.1.2.rp — Comprehensiveness of development partners' policies/strategies: Development partners report on the comprehensiveness of their PSEDC-related policy/strategy. A higher value signifies that the guidances are more comprehensive in terms of including development priorities, targets, rationale, and responsibilities.
K1.1.3.r — Inclusiveness of process to develop policy/strategy: Partner countries report on stakeholder participation in the preparation of the national PSEDC-related guidance. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (seven) [4]. A higher score indicates greater diversity in the stakeholders engaged.
K1.1.3.rp — Inclusiveness of development partners' processes to develop policies/strategies: Development partners report on the participation of partner country stakeholders in the preparation of their PSEDC-related policy/strategy. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six) [5]. The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.
K2.1.r — Dialogue on PSEDC organised by the government: It indicates whether a dialogue on PSEDC was organised by the national government (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
K2.1.rp — Proportion of development partners that have organised a dialogue on PSEDC: It represents the proportion of development partners in the partner country that have organised a dialogue on PSEDC.
K2.2.r — Inclusiveness of dialogue on PSEDC: Partner countries report on stakeholder involvement in the dialogue on PSEDC. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (seven) [6]. A higher score indicates engagement with a more extensive diversity of stakeholders.
K2.2.rp — Inclusiveness of development partners' dialogues on PSE: Development partners report on stakeholder involvement in the dialogue on PSEDC. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (seven) [7]. The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates engagement with a more extensive diversity of stakeholders.
K3.1.R.i — Adding value by delivering results where needed the most: It indicates whether the government perceives PSEDC as delivering results geared towards sectors, regions and target groups that are considered priorities.
K3.1.V.i — Adding value by contributing to development in the country: It indicates whether the government perceives PSEDC as adding value (score of 1) or not (score of 0) in terms of raising funds, building expertise, or reducing the perceived risk for the private sector.
K3.1.r — Extent to which PSEDC is adding value and delivering results where needed most – government perception: It is a composite measure describing the perception of the national government on whether PSE brings added value and delivers development results where most needed. The closer to the maximum value (1), the greater the extent to which PSEDC is perceived as adding value and delivering results where needed the most.
K3.1.r.i3 — o To priority sectors: It indicates whether the government perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards priority sectors. [8]
K3.1.r.i4 — o To priority regions: It indicates whether the government perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards priority regions. [8]
K3.1.r.i5 — o To priority target groups: It indicates whether the government perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards priority target groups. [8]
K3.1.rp — Extent to which PSEDC is adding value and delivering results where needed most – development partners’ perception (average): It is a composite measure describing the average perception of development partners on whether PSE brings added value and delivers development results where most needed. The closer to the maximum value (1), the greater the extent to which PSEDC is perceived as adding value and delivering results where most needed.
K3.1.rp.R.ij — Adding value by delivering results where needed the most: It describes the average extent to which development partners perceive PSEDC as delivering specific results in sectors, regions and target groups that they considered priorities.
K3.1.rp.V.ij — Adding value by contributing to development in the country: It describes the average extent to which development partners perceive PSEDC as adding value in terms of fund raising, building expertise or in risk reduction for development outcomes.
K3.1.rp.r.i3 — o To priority sectors: It indicates whether development partners perceives PSEDC as delivering results geared towards priority sectors.
K3.1.rp.r.i4 — o To priority regions: It indicates whether development partners perceives PSEDC as delivering results geared towards priority regions.
K3.1.rp.r.i5 — o To priority target groups: It indicates whether development partners perceives PSEDC as delivering results geared towards priority target groups.
K3.3 — Government’s perception of alignment of PSEDC projects and programmes with relevant national and international standards: It indicates the extent to which the national government perceives PSEDC projects/programmes to be aligned with relevant national and international standards, such as environmental, social and governance standards.
K3.3.rp — Development partners’ perception of alignment of PSEDC projects and programmes with relevant national and international standards: It indicates the extent to which development partners perceive PSEDC projects/programmes to be aligned with relevant national and international standards, such as environmental, social and governance standards (on average across PCs).
K3.4.rp — Proportion of development partners that conduct risk assessments as part of due diligence processes: It represents the proportion of DPs in the PC that carry out assessments of potential environmental, social and governance risks of PSE projects/programmes supported by them as part of due diligence in the country.
K3.5 — Extent to which the government tracks and makes publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes: It is a composite measure describing the extent to which the national government collects, tracks and makes publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes.
K3.5.1 — o Tracks results of PSEDC projects/programmes: It indicates whether the government tracks results of PSEDC projects/programmes (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
K3.5.2 — o Makes these results publicly available: It indicates whether the government makes results of PSEDC projects/programmes publicly available (score of 1) or not (score of 0).
K3.5.rp — Proportion of development partners that track and make publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes: It indicates whether, on average, the DPs in the PC monitor, collect and make publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes supported by them.
K3.6 — Government has PSEDC-related grievance processes or mechanisms in place: It indicates whether the government has (score of 1) or not (score of 0) a process or mechanism through which stakeholder groups can share grievances or file complaints on PSEDC.
K3.6.rp — Proportion of development partners with PSE-related grievance processes or mechanisms in place: It represents the proportion of DPs in the PC that have a process or mechanism through which stakeholder groups can share grievances or file complaints on PSEDC.
component.id — Description: Interpretation

Notes referenced above¶

[1] These stakeholders are: Parliament, Domestic civil society organizations, Trade Unions, Domestic philanthropic organisations, Domestic private sector, Subnational governments.
[2] These stakeholders are: CSOs, Private sector, Trade Unions, Private foundations, Parliament/legislative body, Subnational governments.
[3] These stakeholders are: Domestic civil society organisations, Trade Unions, Domestic private sector from the partner country, Domestic philanthropic organisations, Subnational governments.
[4] These stakeholders are: Parliament, Domestic civil society organizations, Trade Unions, Domestic philanthropic organisations, Domestic private sector, Subnational governments, Development partners.
[5] These stakeholders are: Domestic civil society organisations, Trade unions, Domestic philanthropic organisations, Domestic private sector, National government, Subnational governments.
[6] These stakeholders are: Subnational government, Parliament, Development partners, Private sector, Civil society organisations, Philanthropic organisations, Trade unions.
[7] These stakeholders are: National government, Subnational government, Parliament, Private sector, Civil society organisations, Trade unions, Philanthropic organisations.
[8] The measurement reflects the following responses: 1 = Very much; 0.5 = Somewhat; 0 = Not at all.
[9] The measurement reflects the following responses: 1 = Very easy; 0.8 = Easy; 0.6 = Somewhat easy; 0.4 = Difficult; 0.2 = Very difficult.