- Key Facts
- Board of Governors
- Board of Directors
- Departments and Offices
- Policies and Strategies
- Annual Meetings
- Independent Evaluation
- Public Sector (Sovereign) Financing
- Private Sector (Nonsovereign) Financing
- Funds and Resources
- Asian Development Fund
- ASEAN Infrastructure Fund
- Investor Information[日本語]
- Business Opportunities
- Consulting Services
- ADB-Japan Scholarship Program
- News & Events
- Data & Research
- Industry and Trade
- Information and Communication Technology
- Public Sector Management
- Social Protection
- Capacity Development
- Climate Change
- Environmental Sustainability
- Gender and Development
- Poverty Reduction
- Private Sector Development
- Regional Cooperation and Integration
- Social Development
- Urban Development
- Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA)
- Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC)
- Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)
- Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT)
- South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC)
- European Representative Office
- Japanese Representative Office [日本語]
- North American Representative Office
- Pacific Liaison and Coordination Office
- Pacific Subregional Office
Countries with Operations
- China, People's Republic of [中文]
- Cook Islands
- Indonesia [Bahasa Indonesia]
- Kyrgyz Republic
- Lao PDR
- Marshall Islands
- Micronesia, Federated States of
- Papua New Guinea
FAQs on Country Performance Assessment
How does ADB ensure objectivity of the country performance assessments (CPA) ratings?
CPAs are based on informed professional judgment of the country teams concerned. To ensure that these assessments are prepared rigorously and with due diligence, ADB has put in place a review and oversight system that is transparent and ensures consistency across the rated countries.
The performance-based allocation (PBA) focal point in the Strategy and Policy Department, outside the operational departments, manages the PBA process. This clearly separates the ADF resource allocation function and the operations for which the allocations are used.
The CPA Working Group reviews and clears individual country's CPAs and ratings. The group is chaired by the PBA focal point advisor, and consists of representatives of the regional and central knowledge departments.
The Technical Group, a subgroup of the CPA Working Group, vets the preliminary CPAs prepared by country teams, to ensure their quality and consistency across countries, and adds greater rigor and transparency to the ongoing CPA. The Technical Group is composed of technical experts in economics, social equity, and environment and governance, all of whom are outside the operational departments.
The interdepartmental CPA review panel - consisting of heads of departments and offices represented in the CPA Working Group - is responsible for finalizing the ratings, which are then endorsed by the appropriate vice presidents.
Why is governance given such a large weight in overall CPA rating and in allocation?
Changes in governance rating exert the greatest influence over changes in composite country performance rating. Poor governance and corruption deter investment, waste resources and distort their allocation, undermine the credibility of public authorities and increase insecurity. Moreover, the poor suffer most from the consequences of weak governance and corruption. Thus, improving governance and fighting corruption are critical to reducing poverty.
Promoting governance increases the stability of the economic environment, enhances the credibility of developing member countries' (DMC) policies, and reduces resource leakages. In deriving the overall CPA rating, and in the allocation formula, a larger weight is assigned to governance because it is critical to the successful development outcomes and to the efficient and effective use of public resources.
Do the respective governments have an opportunity to provide feedback on the assessments and resulting ratings?
CPAs are ADB's own assessments. ADB country teams share the draft assessments and ratings with the respective governments and provide full opportunity for feedback, especially on the factual part of the assessments. CPAs are not subject to negotiations with the respective governments. Differing views on the assessments and ratings are recorded in an aide memoire.
How do ADB's CPA ratings compare with the World Bank's ratings?
ADB employs World Bank's country policy and institutional assessments (CPIA) questionnaire in its assessment of country performance, but its ratings may not necessarily be identical to the ratings given by the World Bank. Rating between the two institutions may differ because:
- ADB and World Bank use different cut-off dates for the information that feeds into assessments;
- Ratings in the portfolio performance category differ, because the composition of portfolios in the respective DMCs and their performance can differ between the institutions;
- Overall performance ratings differ as ADB and World Bank apply different methodologies in aggregating the scores;
World Bank's CPIA questionnaire used by ADB allows for differences in professional judgment. The effect of such differences in judgment has been minimized through elaborate review and oversight arrangements.
How do multilateral banks collaborate in the CPA exercise?
ADB collaborates with other multilateral agencies, particularly with International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank Group. ADB has:
- adopted World Bank's CPIA questionnaire; and
- participates regularly in multilateral development bank (MDB) technical workshops on PBA methods.
In the context of harmonization and closely coordinating business processes and analytical work to support country strategies, joint assessments for post-conflict and weakly performing countries are being supported. Joint assessments in other countries may also be considered provided that these do not impair ownership of and accountability for ratings.
The integrity of the policy and of the allocation process requires that ADB carry out independent assessments to determine its own ratings. Since ADB is accountable for the use of ADF resources, full institutional ownership of country ratings, which underline the allocation of ADF resources, is crucial.