2017年-世界发展银行全球_FY_2016_Lebanon_Country_Opinion_Survey_Report_145页_2mb

FY 2016 Lebanon Country Opinion Survey Report Summary

Core Content Overview

This report presents the findings of the FY 2016 Lebanon Country Opinion Survey (COS), conducted by the World Bank Group's Public Opinion Research Group (PORG). It aims to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the WBG's work in Lebanon, focusing on its effectiveness, collaboration, and future role.

Main Objectives

• To understand how stakeholders in Lebanon perceive the World Bank Group (WBG).
• To explore general issues facing Lebanon.
• To evaluate the WBG's effectiveness and its contribution to development outcomes.
• To identify the WBG's knowledge work and financial instruments.
• To assess the WBG's future role and the importance of citizen voice in development.

Methodology

• Survey Period: May to July 2016.
• Participants: 403 stakeholders from various sectors, including government, private sector, NGOs, media, academia, etc.
• Response Rate: 63% (254 respondents).
• Comparison with FY 2013: Data from FY 2013 (N=196, 34% response rate) were used for comparison, with weighting applied to align stakeholder composition.
• Excluded Groups: Stakeholders not present in both years and those in the "other" category were excluded from the comparison.
• Indicator Questions: Used for the World Bank Group's annual Corporate Scorecard, including questions on effectiveness, development results, and collaboration.

Demographics of the Sample

• Stakeholder Groups: Combined for analysis:
  • Office of the President/Prime Minister and Office of a Minister.
  • Ministry employees and WBG consultants.
  • Financial sector/private banks and private sector organizations.
  • NGOs/CBOs, private foundations, trade unions, faith-based groups, and youth groups were grouped as "CSO".
  • Other stakeholders (e.g., local governments, bilateral/multilateral agencies, judiciary) were included in the "Other" category.
• Geographic Locations: Respondents from Bekaa, South, North, and Mount Lebanon were grouped into "Other".
• Familiarity with WBG: Mean rating of 6.3 (on a 1–10 scale), similar to FY 2013.

General Issues Facing Lebanon

• Direction of the Country: Respondents believed Lebanon was headed in the right direction, similar to FY 2013.
• Development Priorities:
  • Top priorities: Public sector governance/reform (53%), Social protection (32%), Job creation/employment (28%).
• Poverty Reduction:
  • Most important areas: Job creation/employment (50%), Economic growth (41%), Social protection (34%), Rural development (34%).
• Shared Prosperity:
  • Key indicators: A growing middle class (39%), Consistent economic growth (29%), Better employment opportunities for young people (23%).

Overall Attitudes toward the WBG

• Effectiveness of the WBG: Mean rating of 6.9 for collaborators and 5.7 for non-collaborators.
• Main Reasons for Failed Reforms:
  • Political pressures and obstacles (57%).
  • Inefficient government (46%).
  • Inadequate citizen/civil society participation (26%).
• Greatest Value of the WBG:
  • Financial resources: Policy-based lending/budget support (38%).
  • Financial resources: Investment lending (37%).
• Greatest Weakness:
  • Not enough public disclosure of work (25%).
  • Not collaborating enough with non-state actors (21%).
  • Not willing to honestly criticize policies (21%).

Sectoral Effectiveness

• Effectiveness of WBG Support: Significantly different between FY 2016 and FY 2013.
• Collaboration with WBG:
  • Collaborators had higher effectiveness ratings than non-collaborators.
• Private Public Partnerships:
  • Mean rating of 5.1 (on a 1–10 scale).
• Helping the Poorest:
  • Mean rating of 5.2.
• Staffing Adequacy:
  • Mean rating of 5.1.
• Building Country Systems:
  • Mean rating of 5.4.

How the WBG Operates

• Collaboration with the UN:
  • Respondents indicated that collaboration had remained about the same.
• Internal Measuring and Monitoring:
  • Mean rating of 5.1.
• WBG as a Development Partner:
  • Mean rating of 5.5 (on a 1–10 scale), with significant differences between FY 2016 and FY 2013.
• Knowledge Work and Activities:
  • Frequency of Consultation: Similar to FY 2013.
  • Meeting Knowledge Needs: Mean rating of 7.2.
  • Contribution to Development Results: Mean rating of 6.6.
  • Technical Quality: Mean rating of 7.4.
• Financial Instruments:
  • Mean rating of 6.1 (on a 1–10 scale).

Future Role of the WBG in Lebanon

• Making the WBG of Greater Value:
  • Respondents suggested the WBG should:
    • Reach out more to groups outside of government (51%).
    • Reduce the complexity of obtaining financing (34%).
• Collaboration with Other Groups:
  • Top groups for collaboration: NGOs (45%), Private sector (30%), Local government (29%).
• Resource Focus:
  • Top areas: Public sector governance/reform (48%), Social protection (23%), Economic growth (21%), Job creation/employment (18%).
• Services to Offer More:
  • The most requested service: Technical assistance (44%).
• WBG and Other Donors' Roles:
  • WBG should lead in: Public sector governance/reform (45%), Social protection (34%), Economic growth (29%).
  • Other donors should focus on: Human development (45%), Social protection (33%), Public sector governance/reform (29%).

Citizen Voice

• Importance of Citizen Voice:
  • Mean rating of 9.4 for governance accountability.
  • Mean rating of 5.1 for whether citizens have obtained greater voice in the past year.
• Obstacles to Improved Service Delivery:
  • Top issues: Bureaucratic inefficiencies (42%), Lack of transparency (35%), Corruption (23%).

Energy Subsidy Reform

• Necessity for Sustainable Growth:
  • Mean rating of 8.0 (on a 1–10 scale), indicating strong support for reform.
• Impact on the Poor:
  • Most respondents believed that subsidy reform would help the poor by generating fiscal savings (55%).
  • Only 29% thought it would hurt the poor due to higher energy prices.
• Most Convincing Benefits:
  • Fiscal savings (50%).
  • Improved service delivery (34%).

Private Sector Development

• Main Obstacles:
  • Bureaucratic hurdles (45%).
  • Lack of infrastructure (30%).

Refugees

• Donor Support to Refugee Efforts:
  • Mean rating of 4.1, indicating insufficient support.
• WBG Support to Refugee Efforts:
  • Mean rating of 4.3, also indicating room for improvement.

Communication and Information Sharing

• The report includes a section on communication and information sharing, though specific findings are not detailed here.

Appendices

• Appendix A–D: Include non-weighted data.
• Appendix E: Contains weighted stakeholder breakdown and year comparisons.
• Appendix F: Provides additional background information.

Key Takeaways

• Stakeholders generally view the WBG as effective, though with room for improvement in areas like collaboration, transparency, and staffing.
• The WBG is seen as valuable for its financial and knowledge resources but faces challenges in public engagement and policy critique.
• Energy subsidy reform is widely viewed as necessary for sustainable growth, with a majority believing it will benefit the poor.
• Citizen voice is considered extremely important for accountability and service delivery.
• The private sector and refugee-related efforts require more support from both the WBG and the donor community.