State-Building in Fragile States:
An Assessment Toolkit
CONTEXT

Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility
 WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of
donors in FCS forward, BUT
 Challenges of operationalization and persisting weaknesses in donor
approaches to state-building:

 Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
2
Overarching 'Guidance Note’
Interactive E-Tool (excel-based)
'How To' Note on how to use the Tool
Set of 'State Building at a Glance' indicators,
Working / background paper reviewing literature underpinning the
approach
Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States

Offers country and donor teams:
◦ A common ‘language’ or framework for approaching/
understanding fundamental state-building issues
◦ A structured and guided process for collectively an
consistently discussing and assessing state-building
challenges and their implications for country programming
 Toolkit CAN:
◦ Help teams arrive at a common understanding on statebuilding challenges and implications for country programming
◦ Help ‘surface’ some of the difficult state-building
challenges that often are passed over
◦ Help identify areas for further in-depth investigation (via PEA
and other analytical instruments/ approaches)
 Toolkit CANNOT provide definitive answers (if you find X, then do Y)
3
Overview - Conceptual framework
1. Social and Political Context: Nature and Context of
Fragility
2. 3 core dimensions/ characteristics of functioning
states and institutions: Authority, Capacity,
Legitimacy (ACL)
3. 4 ‘domains’ where these dimensions play out:
constitutive/survival domains (security, political/
government), and output/expected domains (economic,
social service delivery)
4. A myriad of institutions that contribute to outcomes in
the four domains
 Each institution will have its own authority-capacity-legitimacy (ACL)
challenges
4
THE ACL FRAMEWORK – CORE CONCEPTS
Capacity (C):
The ability of the state to deliver goods and
services, procure goods and services, design and
implement policies, build infrastructure, collect
revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a
conducive environment for the private sector.
Authority (A):
The ability of the state to
govern its territory
effectively, reach all
citizens regardless of
their location, maintain
law and order and protect
citizens from predation
and violence. It is the
ability of the laws and
rules of the state to
trump all other laws and
rules.
5
Legitimacy (L):
Effective
Public
Authority
Whether citizens feel
the government has
the right to govern –
and whether they trust
the government. (Both
performance and
process matter)
Macro-/Structural Level
Structural Causes of Fragility
Elite and social cleavages
Political settlement, political system and social contract
1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT
AUTHORITY (A)
CAPACITY (C)
LEGITIMACY (L)
2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
A
C
L
Specific Institutions & Organizations
SECURITY
POL/ GVT
ECONOMIC
SOC/ SERV DEL.
3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT
A
SECURITY INSTIT.
1. Core security instit.
2. Justice instit.
3. Etc.
POL/ GVT . INSTIT.
4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL
ASSESSMENT
C
L
Over view – State-Building Assessment
Tool (SBAT)


Excel-based Tool guides teams step by step through the
assessment process
Each step includes questions or ‘prompts’ to help teams:
◦ Assess the ACL of the state or of key institutions at the
respective level and identify state-building needs based on this
assessment
◦ Assess what the government, the Bank, and the international
community are doing to address these needs
◦ Identify the implications of the assessment for the Bank’s
portfolio in terms of risks, priorities and next steps
7
Macro-/Structural Level
Structural Causes of Fragility
Elite and social cleavages
Political settlement, political system and social contract
1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT
AUTHORITY (A)
State-Building Implications
Implications for the Bank portfolio
and partnerships
Risk implications
CAPACITY (C)
LEGITIMACY (L)
2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
2. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
A
C
L
Specific Institutions & Organizations
State-Building Implications
Implications for the Bank portfolio
and partnerships
Risk implications
Prioritization
SECURITY
POL/ GVT
ECONOMIC
SOC/ SERV DEL.
3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT
3. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
A
SECURITY INSTIT.
1. Core security instit.
2. Justice instit.
3. Etc.
POL/ GVT . INSTIT.
4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL
ASSESSMENT
Analysis
C
L
Implications for the Bank portfolio
and partnerships
Risk implications
Prioritization
4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
Practice
How to use the SBAT


Team-based assessment and planning tool 
workshop of 1 to 4 days (depending on version
used)
Needs:
◦ Team contact person + facilitator for planning,
conducting and following up on the workshop
◦ Ideally: work in groups of max 5-6 people
◦ Laptop(s) + Projector(s)
9
Purpose and Options for
Customization

The SBAT is best used to inform the development
of country strategies in FCS (ISNs or CASs), but
it can be ‘customized’ to meet a variety of needs.
E.g.:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10
Joint donor assessments.
Focus on a specific sector or domain.
Use for sub-national authorities.
Use with government and/ or civil society
representatives.
Use in other low- and middle-income countries.
Conclusion

Not just ‘another’ analytical tool: 
◦ Focuses more directly on the state and what the Bank and its partners
can do to strengthen it
◦ Takes a systematic approach of linking different levels of assessment:
 From the macro-/ strategic level to individual institutions and organizations
 From analysis to strategic and operational implications
◦ Offers a conceptual framework or a ‘common language’ on statebuilding.
◦ Generates a common team-based experience of linking analysis to
operational implications
◦ Can 'surface' many of the difficult issues and diverse viewpoints about
state-building that often are left unnoticed
◦ Offers (some) suggestions for strategic and operational choices for
supporting state-building

11
Structured guidance for systematic team discussion of
state-building challenges and implications
The SBAT in detail
Step 1. Assess the Social and Political
Context

To understand to nature and the causes of fragility
1.
Structural Causes – e.g. ethnic or religious divisions,
economic inequality
2. Elite cleavages
3. Social cleavages/ social cohesion
4. Political Settlement/ Political System
5. Social Contract/ Citizen-State Relations
◦ Reflection of key drivers of fragility in the four domains of
governance
◦ Key issues, risks and expected evolution over time

13
Sets the stage for considering the state and its institutions
with their overall socio-political context
TAB 1: POLITICAL & SOCIAL CONTEXT
OVERALL NATURE AND CAUSES OF STATE FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF
KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL
CURRENT STATUS
FRAGILITY
"STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS"
Structural causes of fragility
What (kind of) events, changes in key
What is/ are the fundamental cause(s) of
variables etc. could exacerbate these
fragility (e.g. economic/ religious/
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of
territorial disputes etc.)?
conflict? How likely are they?
Insert Assessment Here
Elite cleavages
Who are the key elite groups and what is
their power basis? How do they bargain What (kind of) events, changes in key
with each other? How credible are their variables etc. could exacerbate these
agreements; is there an 'elite pact'/
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of
'political settlement'? How are rents,
conflict? How likely are they?
power, resources etc. distributed?
Insert Assessment Here
Societal cleavages/ Social
Cohesion
Insert Assessment Here
How 'severe' are these structural
causes?
How do you expect these causes to
evolve over time ?
Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one
option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select
one option
How severe are elite cleavages?
How do you expect these cleavages to
evolve over time ?
Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one
option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select
one option
How severe are social cleavages?
How do you expect these cleavages to
evolve over time ?
Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one
option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select
one option
How robust is the political settlement?
What (kind of) events, changes in key
(How) Is it institutionalized through the
variables etc. could exacerbate these
political system? (How) does the
How robust is the political settlement?
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of
political system mitigate or reinforce/
conflict? How likely are they?
amplify elite and social divisions?
Insert Assessment Here
'Social Contract'/ Citizen-State
Relations
Insert Assessment Here
What/ who are the key social groups
What (kind of) events, changes in key
(e.g. ethnic religious etc.)? What is the
variables etc. could exacerbate these
relationship between them/ how do they
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of
relate to each other? Are some groups
conflict? How likely are they?
sistematically excluded/ marginalized?
Insert Assessment Here
'Political Settlement'/ Political
System
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
What is the relationship between
citizens and the state? (How) can
What (kind of) events, changes in key
citizens articulate their expectations and
variables etc. could exacerbate these
(how) responsive is the state to these
causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of
expectations? How institutionalized is
conflict? How likely are they?
this relationship through the political
system?
EXPECTED TRENDS
How do you expect the [robustness of
] the political settlement - as embedded
in the political system - to evolve over
time?
Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select
one option
How robust is the social contract?
How do you expect citizen-state
relations to evolve over time?
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option
Improving/No change/Worsening? Select
one option
Based on the above, what are the key
issues arising from your consideration
of the nature and causes of fragility?
What are the most likely key risks/
potential stresses?
How severe is fragility ?
How do you expect this fragility to
evolve over time?
High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low
Fragility? Select one option
Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing
Fragility? Select one option
Conclusion/ Summary
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]
14
14
CAUSES & NATURE OF SECTORAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY
How are the drivers of fragility, including
elite and social cleavages reflected in the
security sector?
Security system/ institutions
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Political/ Gvt System/ Institutions
How are the drivers of fragility, including
elite and social cleavages reflected in the
economic sector? What are the key
institutions "to watch"? Do they have the
capacity to mitigate these stresses or do
they reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3]
Service delivery system/
Institutions
KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL
"STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS"
What are the key institutions "to watch" in
the security sector - which ones are the
What (kind of) events, changes in key
most important for state fragility or
variables etc. could undermine institutional
resilience? Do they have the capacity to
stability in this sector? How likely are they?
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they
reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]
What are the key institutions "to watch" in
the political/ gvt sector - which ones are the
How are the drivers of fragility, including
What (kind of) events, changes in key
most important for state fragility or
elite and social cleavages reflected in the
variables etc. could undermine institutional
resilience? Do they have the capacity to
political/ government sector?
stability in this sector? How likely are they?
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they
reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Economic System/ Institutions
KEY INSTITUTIONS
How are the drivers of fragility, including
elite and social cleavages reflected in the
service delivery sector? What are the key
institutions "to watch"? Do they have the
capacity to mitigate these stresses or do
they reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2]
What are the key institutions "to watch" in
the economic sector - which ones are the
What (kind of) events, changes in key
most important for state fragility or
variables etc. could undermine institutional
resilience? Do they have the capacity to
stability in this sector? How likely are they?
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they
reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3]
What are the key institutions "to watch" in
the security sector - which ones are the
What (kind of) events, changes in key
most important for state fragility or
variables etc. could undermine institutional
resilience? Do they have the capacity to
stability in this sector? How likely are they?
mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they
reflect/ exacerbate them?
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4]
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4]
15
Step 2. Strategic/ Overall
Country-Level Assessment

To get an overall picture of the state’s
authority, capacity and legitimacy
◦ ‘Flags’ issues for further assessment at the
next stages
◦ Can highlight some macro-level risks and
strategic implications for teams
 E.g. if the state has high legitimacy due to
political inclusion, but low capacity to deliver
services that are increasingly demanded by the
population, then ‘flag’ building capacity for service
delivery as a key issue to keep in mind for the
following steps.
16
TAB 2: OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES
KEY RISKS
CURRENT STATUS
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
EXPECTED TRENDS
Increasing Fragility/No
High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/
Change/Decreasing Fragility?
Low Fragility? Select one
Select one option
option
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
HIGH-LEVEL STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
ANALYTICAL INPUTS
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENE
SS [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
OTHER
STATE
CURRENT
DONOR/
GOVERNMEN
FRAGILITY/
WB
INTERNATION
T PRIORITIES
RESILIENCE
PORTFOLIO
AL
PORTFOLIO
RISKS
NEXT STEPS
Q. Considering your
Q. Considering your
assessment of the roots of assessment of the roots of
fragility, to what extent is the fragility, to what extent is the
Q. Considering your
state able to govern its
state able to deliver goods
assessment of the roots of
territory effectively, reach all and services, procure goods
What can your
fragility, to what extent do
citizens regardless of their
and services, design and
team do to
citizens feel that the
location, maintain law and
implement policies, build
address the
government has the right to
order and protect citizens
infrastructure, collect
How/ to what
state-building
govern? Do they trust the
What are the
from predation and violence? revenue, dispense justice,
How/ to what
extent do the
issues identified
government?
What analytical products
Based on this
implications of
Do the laws and rules of the and maintain a conducive
How/ to what extent does the other donors'
here? (eg:
are available/ planned/
ACL assessment,
this assessment
state trump all other laws
environment for the private
extent does the current WB and international
through WB
needed for this
what are the key
for (country)
and rules?
sector?
gvt address
portfolio
partners'
portfolio,
assessment (e.g. PEAs,
issues for staterisks idenitifed
these issues? address these
portfolio(s)
partnerships
CAFs/ CSAs etc)?
building?
(e.g. in the
issues ?
address these
with other
High/Medium/Low? Select
High/Medium/Low? Select High/Medium/Low? Select
ORAF)?
issues?
donors, dialogue
one option
one option
one option
with the
government,
etc)?
Rising/Stable/Falling? Select Rising/Stable/Falling? Select
one option
one option
Insert List Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Rising/Stable/Falling?
Select one option
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment
Here
Insert
Assessment
Here
Insert
Assessment
Here
Insert
Insert
Insert
Assessment Here Assessment Here Assessment Here
17
Step 3. Domain Level Assessment

‘Disaggregating’ ACL in the four domains of
governance (security, political/ gvt., economic, and social/
service delivery) - Helps to:
◦ See in which domain and dimension the state performs
better or worse
 Suggestions for indicators to help assess the state’s
authority, capacity and legitimacy in each domain

18
◦  get a more disaggregated picture of ‘meso-level’
challenges and implications for country programming
◦  assign priorities to each domain (if possible/ desired)
◦ Identify sector-level risks and priorities
Some suggestions for strategic/ operational options to
consider in each domain + further literature included in
toolbox
Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1:
Country Snapshot Sheet
TAB 3: STATE DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT
To see indicators suggested for each cell of the State-Building Assessment below, please see FCS, Statebuilding at a Glance Sheet or refer to to Indicators Spreadsheet in Toolkit
Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summary
Sheet
Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains Operational Suggestions & Sources
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
ANALYTICAL INPUTS
What analytical
products are
available/ planned/
needed for this
assessment (e.g.
PEA, CSA, CFA)?
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT
Constitutive Domains/ Survival Functions
SECURITY
AUTHORITY [A]
What analytical
products are
available for this
assessment (e.g. PE
analyses, previous
CAS, ISN, etc)?
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
CAPACITY/EFFECTI
VENESS [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Does the state have Is the way in which the
Does the state's monopoly a monopoly of force state delivers security
of force extend over the
to the extent that perceived as legitimate?
entire territory/ all people
there is limited
Is the state perceived as
living within its borders?
crime or armed
the only legitimate
conflict?
source of security?
Medium
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Falling
Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here
to Tab 4.1]
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
Are people loyal to the
state over other groups? Is
this loyalty based on a
shared sense of national
identity? Do people
recognize the authority of
the government currently
in power?
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
How effective are
core government
systems (executive/ Is the way government
the legislative or
makes and enforces
similar/ the
decisions perceived as
judiciary) at making
legitimate?
and enforcing
decisions?
Low
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Stable
Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here
to Tab 4.2]
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
STATE
OTHER DONOR/
GOVERNMEN CURRENT WB
FRAGILITY/RESILIE
INT'NATIONAL
T PRIORITIES PORTFOLIO
NCE
PORTFOLIO
RISKS
NEXT STEPS
What are the
How/ to what
What are the next steps for
extent do the
Based on this ACL
How/ to what
implications your team to
How/ to what
other donors'
assessment, what
extent does the
of this
strengthen
extent does
and
are the key issues
current WB
assessment this domain
the gvt
international
for state-building in
portfolio
for (country or (eg: through
address these
partners'
the security
address these
sector) risks WB portfolio,
issues?
portfolio(s)
domain?
issues ?
idenitifed (e.g. partnerships
address these
in the ORAF)? with other
issues?
donors etc)?
1st priority
Addresses
partially
Does not address
Addresses
partially
High risk
2nd priority
Insert
Insert
Insert
Insert Assessment Insert Assessment
Insert Assessment Here Assessment Here
Assessment Here Assessment Here
Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
[Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab
4.1]
4.1]
4.1]
4.1]
4.1]
Based on this ACL
assessment, what
are the key issues
for state-building?
2nd priority
What are the
How/ to what
What are the next steps for
extent do the
How/ to what
implications your team to
How/ to what
other donors'
extent does the
of this
strengthen
extent does
and
current WB
assessment this domain
the gvt
international
portfolio
for (country or (eg: through
address these
partners'
address these
sector) risks WB portfolio,
issues?
portfolio(s)
issues ?
idenitifed (e.g. partnerships
address these
in the ORAF)? with other
issues?
donors etc)?
Addresses
partially
Addresses
partially
Addresses to a
large degree
Substantial risk
1st priority
Insert
Insert
Insert
Insert Assessment Insert Assessment
Insert Assessment Here Assessment Here
Assessment Here Assessment Here
Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
[Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab
[Copied to Tab
4.2]
4.2]
4.2]
4.2]
4.2]
19
Step 4. INSTITUTIONAL
assessment

List of ‘typical’ institutions for each domain:

Helps to:

Some general suggestions on strengthening ACL
of institutions
◦ Prompts to determine ACL of the listed institutions
◦ Option to add country-specific institutions that are not
listed  generic questions that can be applied/ adapted
to any institution
◦ Identify key institutions and their strengths and
weaknesses in terms of ACL
◦  assign priorities and develop more fine-grained,
‘micro-level’ operational options/ implications for country
programming
◦ e.g. align de jure and de facto authority, build capacity
of organizations not just individuals etc.
20
TAB 4.2 POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT: INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: SECTOR-LEVEL FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES
KEY INSTITUTIONS
KEY RISKS
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT
Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summary Sheet
Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational
Suggestions & Sources
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENE
SS [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Low
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Stable
INSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT CURRENT WB OTHER DONOR
FRAGILITY/RESI
PRIORITIES
PORTFOLIO
PORTFOLIO
LIENCE
2nd priority
Political/ Gvt. Domain
Executive Institutions Public Financial
Management
Insert Relevant Institutions
Here
Civil Service/General
Public Administration
Institutions
Insert Relevant Institutions
Here
Addresses
partially
Addresses
partially
RISKS
Addresses to a
Substantial risk
large degree
NEXT STEPS
1st priority
Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment
Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Insert Assessment Here [Copied Insert Assessment Here [Copied to
Here [Copied to Tab Here [Copied to
Here [Copied to
Here [Copied to
Here [Copied to
Here [Copied to
Tab 4.2]
to Tab 4.2]
Tab 4.2]
4.2]
Tab 4.2]
Tab 4.2]
Tab 4.2]
Tab 4.2]
Tab 4.2]
How much trust do citizens/
How much capacity do PFM
various social groups/ key elites
How much de jure and de facto
institutions have to fulfill
have in the state about the level
How/ to what
What are the
authority do PFM institutions (basic) PFM functions? Where
and distribution of public
Based on this
extent do the
implications of What are the next
have? How far does this
are the most severe capacity
How/ to what
How/ to what
expenditures and the sources/ assessment, what
other donors' and this assessment steps/ specific
authority extend? What
constraints (e.g. lack of
extent does the extent does the
composition of revenues? Do
are the key issues
international
for (esp.
actions for your
percentage of national resource
qualified staff, lack of
government
current WB
people have trust in the most
for strenghtening
partners'
implementing
team to
flows do such institutions
organizational structures, lack
address these portfolio address
visible revenue collection, budget
this/ these
portfolio(s)
agency) risks
strengthen this
control?
of authorizing legislation, lack
issues?
these issues ?
preparation and execution
institution(s)?
address these
idenitifed (e.g. in
institution?
of/ misaligned incentives)?
institutions?
issues?
the ORAF)?
Medium
High
Low
Stable
Falling
Rising
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
How far does the civil service/
public administration extend
over the entire territory? How
much authority does it have?
How much capacity does the
civil service have in terms of
human and financial
resources, organizational
structures, legislative
framework, incentive structure
etc. to fulfill its functions?
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Falling
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
1st priority
Addresses
partially
Addresses to a
large degree
Does not address Substantial risk
1st priority
Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
How much trust do citizens have
in the civil service/ public
servants/ public administration? Is Based on this
the lack of trust due to an inability assessment, what
to make and enforce decisions, are the key issues
corruption, lack of representation/ for strenghtening
this/ these
inclusion etc.?
institution(s)?
High
2nd priority
How/ to what
extent does the
government
address these
issues?
Does not address
How/ to what
What are the
extent do the
implications of What are the next
How/ to what
other donors' and this assessment steps/ specific
extent does the
international
for (esp.
actions for your
current WB
partners'
implementing
team to
portfolio address
portfolio(s)
agency) risks
strengthen this
these issues ?
address these
idenitifed (e.g. in
institution?
issues?
the ORAF)?
Addresses to a
large degree
Addresses
partially
Low risk
1st priority
Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment Insert Assessment
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
21
Step 5: Country Snapshot and
Summary

To get an overall – integrated – picture of
the assessment and the implications
◦ Snapshot: all color-based ratings
◦ Summary: text for key issues for state stability
and resilience and next steps for the Bank

Review:
◦ Quick ‘glimpse’ of key challenges, priorities,
next steps etc.
◦ Ensure consistency – revisit assessments
where necessary
22
TAB 5.1 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT
[INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by
using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building
assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: NATURE AND CAUSES OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES
KEY RISKS
CURRENT STATUS
EXPECTED TRENDS
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
Medium Fragility
Increasing Fragility
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
OVERALL STRATEGIC
LEVEL
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENES
S [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Medium
Low
High
Falling
Rising
Falling
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENES
S [C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Medium
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Falling
SECURITY DOMAIN AND
INSTITUTIONS
Core Security Institutions
(e.g. military, police, etc)
Medium
Military
Stable
Rising
Falling
Justice & Rule of Law
Institutions
Low
Medium
Low
Judiciary
Rising
Stable
Rising
Management and Oversight
Bodies
Low
Low
Low
Ntl Security Council
Stable
Rising
Stable
Security-related PFM
Institutions
Low
Medium
Low
MoF
Rising
Stable
Rising
Local authorities; Civil
Society Institions
Low
Low
Low
HR NGOs
Stable
Rising
Stable
Other Relevant Institutions
Medium
Low
High
Police
Rising
Stable
Falling
STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENC
E
GOVERNMENT
PRIORITIES
CURRENT WB
PORTFOLIO
OTHER DONOR/
INT'NATIONAL
PORTFOLIO
RISKS
NEXT STEPS
1st priority
Addresses partially
Does not address
Addresses partially
High risk
2nd priority
1st priority
Addresses partially
N/A
Addresses partially
High risk
N/A
1st priority
Addresses partially
Addresses to a large degree
Addresses partially
Substantial risk
1st priority
2nd priority
Does not address
N/A
Does not address
High risk
N/A
3rd priority
Addresses partially
Addresses to a large degree
Does not address
Medium risk
2nd priority
4th priority
Does not address
Addresses partially
Addresses to a large degree
Medium risk
3rd priority
3rd priority
Addresses to a large degree
N/A
Does not address
Low risk
N/A
Low
Medium
TAB 5.2 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT
[INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]
* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment
completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for
each level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY
KEY ISSUES
KEY RISKS
CURRENT STATUS
EXPECTED TRENDS
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 2]
Medium Fragility
Increasing Fragility
OVERALL STRATEGIC
LEVEL
AUTHORITY [A]
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
Medium
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS
[C]
Low
Falling
Rising
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
LEGITIMACY [L]
High
Falling
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
STATE DOMAIN LEVEL
DEGREE OF RISK
NEXT STEPS
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
Insert Assessment Here
OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS
[C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Medium
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Falling
Low
Low
Medium
Rising
Rising
Stable
Medium
Low
Medium
Stable
Rising
Rising
Medium
Low
Stable
Rising
Rising
Stable
SECURITY
POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL/SERVICE
DELIVERY
STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE
INSTITUTIONAL AND
STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE
DEGREE OF RISK
NEXT STEPS
RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY LEVEL FOR
NEXT STEPS
STATE DOMAIN
LEVEL
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
High risk
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.1]
2nd priority
SECURITY
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
Substantial risk
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.2]
1st priority
POLITICAL/
GOVERNMENT
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.3]
Substantial risk
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.3]
3rd priority
ECONOMIC
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.4]
Low risk
Insert Assessment Here
[Copied to Tab 4.4]
2nd priority
SOCIAL/SERVIC
E DELIVERY
INSTITUTIONAL
AND
ORGANIZATION
AL LEVEL
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS
SECURITY INSTITUTIONS
AUTHORITY [A]
CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS
[C]
LEGITIMACY [L]
Core Security Institutions
(e.g. military, police, etc)
Medium
Medium
Low
Military
Stable
Rising
Falling
Justice & Rule of Law
Institutions
Low
Medium
Low
Judiciary
Rising
Stable
Rising
STATE
FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE
DEGREE OF RISK
NEXT STEPS
RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY LEVEL FOR
NEXT STEPS
Insert Assessment Here
High risk
Insert Assessment Here
N/A
Insert Assessment Here
Substantial risk
Insert Assessment Here
1st priority
SECURITY
INSTITUTIONS
Core Security
Institutions (e.g.
military, police,
etc)
Insert
Assessment Here
Justice & Rule
of Law
Institutions
Insert
Assessment Here
24