Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal Year 2010, 47620-47623 [E9-22331]
Download as PDF
47620
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 09–16]
Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2010
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This report to Congress is
provided in accordance with Section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act
of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)
(the ‘‘Act’’).
Dated: September 14, 2009.
Henry C. Pitney,
(Acting) Vice President and General Counsel,
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Report on the Criteria and Methodology
for Determining the Eligibility of
Candidate Countries for Millennium
Challenge Account Assistance in Fiscal
Year 2010 Summary
This report to Congress is provided in
accordance with section 608(b) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as
amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b) (the ‘‘Act’’).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
assistance to countries that enter into
compacts with the United States to
support policies and programs that
advance the prospects of such countries
achieving lasting economic growth and
poverty reduction. The Act requires the
Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) to take a number of steps in
determining what countries will be
eligible for MCA assistance during fiscal
year 2010 (FY10) based on the
countries’ demonstrated commitment to
just and democratic governance,
economic freedom, investing in their
people, and the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth
in the country. These steps include the
submission of reports to the
congressional committees specified in
the Act and the publication of notices in
the Federal Register that identify:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance during
FY10 based on their per-capita income
levels and their eligibility to receive
assistance under U.S. law, and countries
that would be candidate countries but
for specified legal prohibitions on
assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22
U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that
the Board of Directors of MCC (the
Board) will use to measure and evaluate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Sep 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
the relative policy performance of the
candidate countries consistent with the
requirements of section 607 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine
‘‘MCA eligible countries’’ from among
the ‘‘candidate countries’’ (section
608(b) of the Act); and
3. The list of countries determined by
the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ for FY10, with justification
for eligibility determination and
selection for compact negotiation,
including which of the MCA eligible
countries the Board will seek to enter
into MCA compacts (section 608(d) of
the Act).
This report sets out the criteria and
methodology to be applied in
determining eligibility for new partner
countries for FY10 MCA assistance.
The Criteria and Methodology for FY10
MCC reviews all of its indicators and
methodology annually and, from time to
time, recommends changes or
refinements if MCC identifies better
methodologies, better indicators, or
improved sources of data. MCC takes
into account public comments received
on the previous year’s criteria and
methodology and consults with a broad
range of experts in the development
community and within the U.S.
Government.
In response to a request in the
Explanatory Statement accompanying
the 2009 Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, MCC considered an
indicator that takes into account the
votes and positions of the countries in
international and multilateral
institutions with respect to human
rights; however, MCC’s current
indicator framework already includes
three indicators—Political Rights, Civil
Liberties, and Voice and
Accountability—that measure
government commitment to human and
democratic rights within their own
borders. These indicators are better
suited for measuring a government’s
commitment to human rights than its
voting record, which can be influenced
by political goals. Thus, such a measure
is not a good fit for MCC’s indicatorbased system, as it would potentially
politicize the country selection process.
In keeping with MCC’s commitment
to aid effectiveness through the regular
evaluation of its own practice, the
agency plans to review the selection
criteria and methodology as a whole in
2010. This will include, as a matter of
course, consultations with a broad
group of stakeholders. As a first step, we
invite broad participation in the 30-day
public comment period that follows the
publication of this report.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Changes to the Criteria and
Methodology for FY10
Approach to Country Income
Graduation
Every year, changes in candidate
countries’ income status substantially
affect MCC’s candidate country pool—
some countries ‘‘graduate’’ from one
income category to another; low income
countries (LIC) become reclassified as
lower middle income countries (LMIC),
and LMICs are reclassified as upper
middle income countries. Changes in
economic growth rates, exchange rates,
and relative inflation can contribute to
country graduation, without necessarily
representing a dramatic or immediate
improvement in overall living standards
of the country’s population.
Because MCC evaluates the relative
performance of LICs and LMICs in
separate income groups, when a country
graduates from LIC to LMIC, it typically
does not meet the higher performance
standards in its new group, even if it
performed relatively well as an LIC,
and, in absolute terms, maintained or
improved performance over the
previous year.
To address the challenges associated
with graduating countries that have
experienced no real change in
performance, MCC is adopting an
approach to income graduation in
which a country that graduates from LIC
to LMIC will have its indicator
performance considered both relative to
its LMIC peers as well as in comparison
to the current fiscal year’s LIC pool for
a period of three years. This practice is
consistent with the flexible, gradual
graduation approaches of other donor
institutions.
Eligibility for Consecutive Compact
Several of MCC’s early compacts are
due to conclude within the next two
years. MCC’s experience to date suggests
that compact development takes
approximately 18 months. To maximize
benefits of lessons learned in the first
compact, the Board may determine that
certain compact countries should be
selected as eligible to develop a second
compact before the completion of their
first compact program.
For FY10, when determining a
country’s eligibility for a second
compact, MCC will consider, among
other factors, the country’s policy
performance using the selection criteria
and methodology outlined in this
report, the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth
in the country, and the country’s
performance implementing its first
compact. To assess implementation of a
first compact, the MCC recommends
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices
47621
The Board will determine eligible
countries based on several factors
including (i) their overall performance
in three broad policy categories—Ruling
Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom,
and Investing in People; and (ii) the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth. Section 607
of the Act requires that the Board’s
determination of eligibility be based ‘‘to
the maximum extent possible, upon
objective and quantifiable indicators of
a country’s demonstrated commitment’’
to the criteria set out in the Act.
For FY10, there will be two groups of
candidate countries—LICs and LMICs.
LIC candidates refer to those countries
that have a per capita income equal to
or less than $1,855 and are not ineligible
to receive United States economic
assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the
application of any provision of the
Foreign Assistance Act or any other
provision of law. Lower middle income
candidate countries are those that have
a per capita income between $1,856 and
$3,855 and are not ineligible to receive
United States economic assistance.
The Board will make use of seventeen
indicators to assess policy performance
of individual countries (specific
definitions of the indicators and their
sources are set out in annex A). These
indicators are grouped for purposes of
the FY10 assessment methodology
under the three policy categories listed
below.
Ruling justly
Encouraging economic freedom
Investing in people
that the Board consider the nature of the
country partnership with MCC, the
degree to which the country has
demonstrated a commitment and
capacity to achieve program results, and
the degree to which the country has
implemented the compact in accordance
with MCC’s core policies and standards.
Criteria and Methodology
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Civil Liberties
Political Rights
Voice and Accountability
Government Effectiveness
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In making its determination of
eligibility with respect to a particular
candidate country, the Board will
consider whether a country performs
above the median in relation to its
income level peers (LIC or LMIC) on at
least half of the indicators in the Ruling
Justly and Encouraging Economic
Freedom categories, above the median
on at least three of the five indicators in
the Investing in People category, and
above the median on the Control of
Corruption indicator. One exception to
this methodology is that the median is
not used for the Inflation indicator.
Instead, to pass the Inflation indicator a
country’s inflation rate needs to be
under a fixed ceiling of 15 percent. The
Board will also take into consideration
whether a country performs
substantially below the median on any
indicator (i.e. in the bottom 25th
percentile) and has not taken
appropriate measures to address this
shortcoming.
Each year a number of countries shift
income groups, and some countries
formerly classified as LICs suddenly
face new, higher performance standards
in the LMIC group. To address the
challenges associated with sudden
changes in criteria for these countries,
MCC has adopted an approach to
income graduation whereby the Board
may consider the indicator performance
of countries that graduated from the LIC
to the LMIC category in FY10 both
relative to their LMIC peers as well as
in comparison to the current fiscal
year’s LIC pool for a period of three
years.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Sep 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Inflation
Fiscal Policy
Business Start-Up
Trade Policy
Regulatory Quality
Land Rights and Access
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Consistent with the Act, the
indicators will be the predominant basis
for determining which countries will be
eligible for MCA assistance. However,
the Board may exercise discretion when
evaluating performance on the
indicators and determining a final list of
eligible countries. Where necessary, the
Board may also take into account other
quantitative and qualitative information
(supplemental information) to
determine whether a country performed
satisfactorily in relation to its peers in
a given category. There are elements of
the criteria set out in the Act for which
there is either limited quantitative
information (e.g., rights of people with
disabilities) or no well-developed
performance indicator. Until such data
and/or indicators are developed, the
Board may rely on additional data and
qualitative information to assess policy
performance. For example, the State
Department Human Rights Report
contains qualitative information to make
an assessment on a variety of criteria
outlined by Congress, such as the rights
of people with disabilities, the treatment
of women and children, workers rights,
and human rights. The Board may also
consider whether any adjustments
should be made for data gaps, lags,
trends, or other weaknesses in particular
indicators. For example, as additional
information in the area of corruption,
the Board may consider how a country
scores on supplemental sources like
Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index and the Global
Integrity Index, as well as on the
defined indicator.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Public Expenditure on Health.
Public Expenditure on Primary Education.
Immunization Rates (DPT3 and Measles).
Girls’ Primary Education Completion.
Natural Resource Management.
Countries nearing the end of compact
implementation may be considered for
eligibility for a second compact. In
determining eligibility for consecutive
compacts, MCC recommends that the
Board consider, among other factors, the
country’s policy performance using the
methodology and criteria described
above, the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth
in the country, and the country’s track
record of performance implementing its
first compact.
Compact eligible country partners are
expected to seek to maintain and
improve policy performance. MCC
recognizes that country partners may
not meet the eligibility criteria from
time to time due to a number of factors,
such as changes in the peer-group
median; graduation into a new income
category (e.g., from low income to lower
middle income); numerical declines that
are within the margin of error; slight
declines in policy performance;
revisions or corrections of data; the
introduction of new sub-data sources; or
changes in the indicators used to
measure performance. None of these
factors alone signifies a significant
policy reversal or warrants suspension
or termination of eligibility and/or
assistance. However, countries that
demonstrate a significant policy reversal
may be issued a warning, suspension, or
termination of eligibility and/or
assistance. According to MCC’s
authorizing legislation, ‘‘[a]fter
consultation with the Board, the Chief
Executive Officer may suspend or
terminate assistance in whole or in part
for a country or entity * * * if * * *
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
47622
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices
the country or entity has engaged in a
pattern of actions inconsistent with the
criteria used to determine the eligibility
of the country or entity * * *.’’ Because
of data lags, this pattern of behavior
need not be captured in the indicators
for MCC to take action.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Relationship to Legislative Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act
sets out a number of specific selection
criteria. As indicated above, a set of
objective and quantifiable policy
indicators is used to establish eligibility
for MCA assistance and measure the
relative performance by candidate
countries against these criteria. The
Board’s approach to determining
eligibility ensures that performance
against each of these criteria is assessed
by at least one of the seventeen objective
indicators.
Most are addressed by multiple
indicators. The specific indicators
appear in parentheses below next to the
corresponding criterion set out in the
Act.
Section 607(b)(1) Just and democratic
governance, including a demonstrated
commitment to:
1. Promote political pluralism,
equality and the rule of law (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and
Accountability, and Rule of Law);
2. Respect human and civil rights,
including the rights of people with
disabilities (Political Rights, Civil
Liberties, and Voice and
Accountability);
3. Protect private property rights (Civil
Liberties, Regulatory Quality, Rule of
Law, and Land Rights and Access);
4. Encourage transparency and
accountability of government (Political
Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and
Accountability, Control of Corruption,
Rule of Law, and Government
Effectiveness); and
5. Combat corruption (Political Rights,
Civil Liberties, Rule of Law, and Control
of Corruption).
Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom,
including a demonstrated commitment
to economic policies that:
1. Encourage citizens and firms to
participate in global trade and
international capital markets (Fiscal
Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy, Business
Start-Up, and Regulatory Quality);
2. Promote private sector growth
(Inflation, Business Start-Up, Fiscal
Policy, Land Rights and Access, and
Regulatory Quality);
3. Strengthen market forces in the
economy (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade
Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights
and Access, and Regulatory Quality);
and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Sep 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
4. Respect worker rights, including
the right to form labor unions (Civil
Liberties and Voice and Accountability).
Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the
people of such country, particularly
women and children, including
programs that:
1. Promote broad-based primary
education (Girls’ Primary Education
Completion and Public Expenditure on
Primary Education);
2. Strengthen and build capacity to
provide quality public health and
reduce child mortality (Immunization
Rates, Public Expenditure on Health,
and Natural Resource Management);
and
3. Promote the protection of
biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of
natural resources (Natural Resource
Management).
Annex A to Report: Indicator
Definitions
The following 17 indicators will be
used to measure candidate countries’
demonstrated commitment to the
criteria found in section 607(b) of the
Act. The indicators are intended to
assess the degree to which the political
and economic conditions in a country
serve to promote broad-based
sustainable economic growth and
reduction of poverty; and thus provide
a sound environment for the use of
MCA funds. The indicators are not goals
in themselves; rather they measure
policies that are linked to broad-based
sustainable economic growth. The
indicators were selected based on their
(i) relationship to economic growth and
poverty reduction, (ii) the number of
countries they cover, (iii) transparency
and availability, and (iv) relative
soundness and objectivity. Where
possible, the indicators are developed
by independent sources.
Ruling Justly
1. Civil Liberties: A panel of
independent experts rates countries on
freedom of expression; association and
organizational rights; rule of law and
human rights; and personal autonomy
and economic rights. Source: Freedom
House.
2. Political Rights: A panel of
independent experts rates countries on
the prevalence of free and fair elections
of officials with real power; the ability
of citizens to form political parties that
may compete fairly in elections;
freedom from domination by the
military, foreign powers, totalitarian
parties, religious hierarchies and
economic oligarchies; and the political
rights of minority groups. Source:
Freedom House.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3. Voice and Accountability: An index
of surveys/expert assessments that rates
countries on: the ability of institutions
to protect civil liberties; the extent to
which citizens of a country are able to
participate in the selection of
governments; and the independence of
the media. Source: World Bank Institute.
4. Government Effectiveness: An
index of surveys/expert assessments
that rates countries on the quality of
public service provision; civil servants’
competency and independence from
political pressures; and the
government’s ability to plan and
implement sound policies. Source:
World Bank Institute.
5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys/
expert assessments that rates countries
on the extent to which the public has
confidence in and abides by the rules of
society; the incidence of violent and
nonviolent crime; the effectiveness,
independence, and predictability of the
judiciary; and the enforceability of
contracts. Source: World Bank Institute.
6. Control of Corruption: An index of
surveys/expert assessments that rates
countries on the frequency of
‘‘additional payments to get things
done;’’ the effects of corruption on the
business environment; ‘‘grand
corruption’’ in the political arena; and
the tendency of elites to engage in ‘‘state
capture.’’ Source: World Bank Institute.
Encouraging Economic Freedom
1. Inflation: The most recent average
annual change in consumer prices.
Source: The International Monetary
Fund’s World Economic Outlook
database.
2. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget
deficit divided by GDP, averaged over a
three-year period. The data for this
measure relies primarily on IMF country
reports with input from U.S. missions in
host countries, or is provided directly
by the recipient government where
public IMF data is outdated or
unavailable. All data is cross-checked
with the IMF’s World Economic
Outlook database to try to ensure
consistency across countries and made
publicly available. Source: International
Monetary Fund Country Reports,
National Governments, and the
International Monetary Fund’s World
Economic Outlook database.
3. Business Start-Up: An index that
rates countries on the time and cost of
complying with all procedures officially
required for an entrepreneur to start up
and formally operate an industrial or
commercial business. Source:
International Finance Corporation.
4. Trade Policy: A measure of a
country’s openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices
rates and non-tariff barriers to trade.
Source: The Heritage Foundation.
5. Regulatory Quality: An index of
surveys/expert assessments that rates
countries on the burden of regulations
on business; price controls; the
government’s role in the economy;
foreign investment regulation; and many
other areas. Source: World Bank
Institute.
6. Land Rights and Access: An index
that rates countries on: The extent to
which the institutional, legal, and
market framework provide secure land
tenure and equitable access to land in
rural areas and the time and cost of
property registration in urban and periurban areas. Source: The International
Fund for Agricultural Development and
the International Finance Corporation.
Investing in People
1. Public Expenditure on Health:
Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by
GDP. Source: The World Health
Organization.
2. Immunization Rates: The average of
DPT3 and measles immunization rates
for the most recent year available.
Source: The World Health Organization.
3. Total Public Expenditure on
Primary Education: Total expenditures
on primary education by government at
all levels divided by GDP. Source: The
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization and National
Governments.
4. Girls’ Primary Completion Rate:
The number of female students enrolled
in the last grade of primary education
minus repeaters divided by the
population in the relevant age cohort.
Source: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
5. Natural Resource Management: An
index made up of four indicators: Ecoregion protection, access to improved
water, access to improved sanitation,
and child (ages 1–4) mortality. Source:
The Center for International Earth
Science Information Network and the
Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy.
[FR Doc. E9–22331 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
Records Schedules; Availability and
Request for Comments
AGENCY: National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice of availability of
proposed records schedules; request for
comments.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:04 Sep 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
SUMMARY: The National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA)
publishes notice at least once monthly
of certain Federal agency requests for
records disposition authority (records
schedules). Once approved by NARA,
records schedules provide mandatory
instructions on what happens to records
when no longer needed for current
Government business. They authorize
the preservation of records of
continuing value in the National
Archives of the United States and the
destruction, after a specified period, of
records lacking administrative, legal,
research, or other value. Notice is
published for records schedules in
which agencies propose to destroy
records not previously authorized for
disposal or reduce the retention period
of records already authorized for
disposal. NARA invites public
comments on such records schedules, as
required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
DATES: Requests for copies must be
received in writing on or before October
16, 2009. Once the appraisal of the
records is completed, NARA will send
a copy of the schedule. NARA staff
usually prepare appraisal
memorandums that contain additional
information concerning the records
covered by a proposed schedule. These,
too, may be requested and will be
provided once the appraisal is
completed. Requesters will be given 30
days to submit comments.
ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of
any records schedule identified in this
notice by contacting the Life Cycle
Management Division (NWML) using
one of the following means:
Mail: NARA (NWML), 8601 Adelphi
Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001.
E-mail: request.schedule@nara.gov.
FAX: 301–837–3698.
Requesters must cite the control
number, which appears in parentheses
after the name of the agency which
submitted the schedule, and must
provide a mailing address. Those who
desire appraisal reports should so
indicate in their request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle
Management Division (NWML),
National Archives and Records
Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD 20740–6001.
Telephone: 301–837–1539. E-mail:
records.mgt@nara.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year
Federal agencies create billions of
records on paper, film, magnetic tape,
and other media. To control this
accumulation, agency records managers
prepare schedules proposing retention
periods for records and submit these
schedules for NARA’s approval, using
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47623
the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for
Records Disposition Authority. These
schedules provide for the timely transfer
into the National Archives of
historically valuable records and
authorize the disposal of all other
records after the agency no longer needs
them to conduct its business. Some
schedules are comprehensive and cover
all the records of an agency or one of its
major subdivisions. Most schedules,
however, cover records of only one
office or program or a few series of
records. Many of these update
previously approved schedules, and
some include records proposed as
permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are
media neutral unless specified
otherwise. An item in a schedule is
media neutral when the disposition
instructions may be applied to records
regardless of the medium in which the
records are created and maintained.
Items included in schedules submitted
to NARA on or after December 17, 2007,
are media neutral unless the item is
limited to a specific medium. (See 36
CFR 1228.24(b)(3).)
No Federal records are authorized for
destruction without the approval of the
Archivist of the United States. This
approval is granted only after a
thorough consideration of their
administrative use by the agency of
origin, the rights of the Government and
of private persons directly affected by
the Government’s activities, and
whether or not they have historical or
other value.
Besides identifying the Federal
agencies and any subdivisions
requesting disposition authority, this
public notice lists the organizational
unit(s) accumulating the records or
indicates agencywide applicability in
the case of schedules that cover records
that may be accumulated throughout an
agency. This notice provides the control
number assigned to each schedule, the
total number of schedule items, and the
number of temporary items (the records
proposed for destruction). It also
includes a brief description of the
temporary records. The records
schedule itself contains a full
description of the records at the file unit
level as well as their disposition. If
NARA staff has prepared an appraisal
memorandum for the schedule, it too
includes information about the records.
Further information about the
disposition process is available on
request.
Schedules Pending
1. Department of Defense, Office of
the Secretary (N1–330–09–5, 1 item, 1
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47620-47623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22331]
[[Page 47620]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
[MCC FR 09-16]
Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2010
AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This report to Congress is provided in accordance with Section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C.
7707(b) (the ``Act'').
Dated: September 14, 2009.
Henry C. Pitney,
(Acting) Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility
of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in
Fiscal Year 2010 Summary
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section
608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C.
7707(b) (the ``Act'').
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account
(MCA) assistance to countries that enter into compacts with the United
States to support policies and programs that advance the prospects of
such countries achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction.
The Act requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to take a
number of steps in determining what countries will be eligible for MCA
assistance during fiscal year 2010 (FY10) based on the countries'
demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic
freedom, investing in their people, and the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth in the country. These steps
include the submission of reports to the congressional committees
specified in the Act and the publication of notices in the Federal
Register that identify:
1. The countries that are ``candidate countries'' for MCA
assistance during FY10 based on their per-capita income levels and
their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law, and countries
that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions
on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
2. The criteria and methodology that the Board of Directors of MCC
(the Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy
performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements
of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine ``MCA
eligible countries'' from among the ``candidate countries'' (section
608(b) of the Act); and
3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be ``MCA
eligible countries'' for FY10, with justification for eligibility
determination and selection for compact negotiation, including which of
the MCA eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into MCA
compacts (section 608(d) of the Act).
This report sets out the criteria and methodology to be applied in
determining eligibility for new partner countries for FY10 MCA
assistance.
The Criteria and Methodology for FY10
MCC reviews all of its indicators and methodology annually and,
from time to time, recommends changes or refinements if MCC identifies
better methodologies, better indicators, or improved sources of data.
MCC takes into account public comments received on the previous year's
criteria and methodology and consults with a broad range of experts in
the development community and within the U.S. Government.
In response to a request in the Explanatory Statement accompanying
the 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, MCC considered an indicator that takes into account
the votes and positions of the countries in international and
multilateral institutions with respect to human rights; however, MCC's
current indicator framework already includes three indicators--
Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Voice and Accountability--that
measure government commitment to human and democratic rights within
their own borders. These indicators are better suited for measuring a
government's commitment to human rights than its voting record, which
can be influenced by political goals. Thus, such a measure is not a
good fit for MCC's indicator-based system, as it would potentially
politicize the country selection process.
In keeping with MCC's commitment to aid effectiveness through the
regular evaluation of its own practice, the agency plans to review the
selection criteria and methodology as a whole in 2010. This will
include, as a matter of course, consultations with a broad group of
stakeholders. As a first step, we invite broad participation in the 30-
day public comment period that follows the publication of this report.
Changes to the Criteria and Methodology for FY10
Approach to Country Income Graduation
Every year, changes in candidate countries' income status
substantially affect MCC's candidate country pool--some countries
``graduate'' from one income category to another; low income countries
(LIC) become reclassified as lower middle income countries (LMIC), and
LMICs are reclassified as upper middle income countries. Changes in
economic growth rates, exchange rates, and relative inflation can
contribute to country graduation, without necessarily representing a
dramatic or immediate improvement in overall living standards of the
country's population.
Because MCC evaluates the relative performance of LICs and LMICs in
separate income groups, when a country graduates from LIC to LMIC, it
typically does not meet the higher performance standards in its new
group, even if it performed relatively well as an LIC, and, in absolute
terms, maintained or improved performance over the previous year.
To address the challenges associated with graduating countries that
have experienced no real change in performance, MCC is adopting an
approach to income graduation in which a country that graduates from
LIC to LMIC will have its indicator performance considered both
relative to its LMIC peers as well as in comparison to the current
fiscal year's LIC pool for a period of three years. This practice is
consistent with the flexible, gradual graduation approaches of other
donor institutions.
Eligibility for Consecutive Compact
Several of MCC's early compacts are due to conclude within the next
two years. MCC's experience to date suggests that compact development
takes approximately 18 months. To maximize benefits of lessons learned
in the first compact, the Board may determine that certain compact
countries should be selected as eligible to develop a second compact
before the completion of their first compact program.
For FY10, when determining a country's eligibility for a second
compact, MCC will consider, among other factors, the country's policy
performance using the selection criteria and methodology outlined in
this report, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic
growth in the country, and the country's performance implementing its
first compact. To assess implementation of a first compact, the MCC
recommends
[[Page 47621]]
that the Board consider the nature of the country partnership with MCC,
the degree to which the country has demonstrated a commitment and
capacity to achieve program results, and the degree to which the
country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core
policies and standards.
Criteria and Methodology
The Board will determine eligible countries based on several
factors including (i) their overall performance in three broad policy
categories--Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, and Investing
in People; and (ii) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate
economic growth. Section 607 of the Act requires that the Board's
determination of eligibility be based ``to the maximum extent possible,
upon objective and quantifiable indicators of a country's demonstrated
commitment'' to the criteria set out in the Act.
For FY10, there will be two groups of candidate countries--LICs and
LMICs. LIC candidates refer to those countries that have a per capita
income equal to or less than $1,855 and are not ineligible to receive
United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the application of any provision of
the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law. Lower middle
income candidate countries are those that have a per capita income
between $1,856 and $3,855 and are not ineligible to receive United
States economic assistance.
The Board will make use of seventeen indicators to assess policy
performance of individual countries (specific definitions of the
indicators and their sources are set out in annex A). These indicators
are grouped for purposes of the FY10 assessment methodology under the
three policy categories listed below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling justly Encouraging economic freedom Investing in people
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Civil Liberties 1. Inflation 1. Public Expenditure on Health.
2. Political Rights 2. Fiscal Policy 2. Public Expenditure on Primary
Education.
3. Voice and Accountability 3. Business Start-Up 3. Immunization Rates (DPT3 and
Measles).
4. Government Effectiveness 4. Trade Policy 4. Girls' Primary Education
Completion.
5. Rule of Law 5. Regulatory Quality 5. Natural Resource Management.
6. Control of Corruption 6. Land Rights and Access ....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making its determination of eligibility with respect to a
particular candidate country, the Board will consider whether a country
performs above the median in relation to its income level peers (LIC or
LMIC) on at least half of the indicators in the Ruling Justly and
Encouraging Economic Freedom categories, above the median on at least
three of the five indicators in the Investing in People category, and
above the median on the Control of Corruption indicator. One exception
to this methodology is that the median is not used for the Inflation
indicator. Instead, to pass the Inflation indicator a country's
inflation rate needs to be under a fixed ceiling of 15 percent. The
Board will also take into consideration whether a country performs
substantially below the median on any indicator (i.e. in the bottom
25th percentile) and has not taken appropriate measures to address this
shortcoming.
Each year a number of countries shift income groups, and some
countries formerly classified as LICs suddenly face new, higher
performance standards in the LMIC group. To address the challenges
associated with sudden changes in criteria for these countries, MCC has
adopted an approach to income graduation whereby the Board may consider
the indicator performance of countries that graduated from the LIC to
the LMIC category in FY10 both relative to their LMIC peers as well as
in comparison to the current fiscal year's LIC pool for a period of
three years.
Consistent with the Act, the indicators will be the predominant
basis for determining which countries will be eligible for MCA
assistance. However, the Board may exercise discretion when evaluating
performance on the indicators and determining a final list of eligible
countries. Where necessary, the Board may also take into account other
quantitative and qualitative information (supplemental information) to
determine whether a country performed satisfactorily in relation to its
peers in a given category. There are elements of the criteria set out
in the Act for which there is either limited quantitative information
(e.g., rights of people with disabilities) or no well-developed
performance indicator. Until such data and/or indicators are developed,
the Board may rely on additional data and qualitative information to
assess policy performance. For example, the State Department Human
Rights Report contains qualitative information to make an assessment on
a variety of criteria outlined by Congress, such as the rights of
people with disabilities, the treatment of women and children, workers
rights, and human rights. The Board may also consider whether any
adjustments should be made for data gaps, lags, trends, or other
weaknesses in particular indicators. For example, as additional
information in the area of corruption, the Board may consider how a
country scores on supplemental sources like Transparency
International's Corruption Perceptions Index and the Global Integrity
Index, as well as on the defined indicator.
Countries nearing the end of compact implementation may be
considered for eligibility for a second compact. In determining
eligibility for consecutive compacts, MCC recommends that the Board
consider, among other factors, the country's policy performance using
the methodology and criteria described above, the opportunity to reduce
poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the country's
track record of performance implementing its first compact.
Compact eligible country partners are expected to seek to maintain
and improve policy performance. MCC recognizes that country partners
may not meet the eligibility criteria from time to time due to a number
of factors, such as changes in the peer-group median; graduation into a
new income category (e.g., from low income to lower middle income);
numerical declines that are within the margin of error; slight declines
in policy performance; revisions or corrections of data; the
introduction of new sub-data sources; or changes in the indicators used
to measure performance. None of these factors alone signifies a
significant policy reversal or warrants suspension or termination of
eligibility and/or assistance. However, countries that demonstrate a
significant policy reversal may be issued a warning, suspension, or
termination of eligibility and/or assistance. According to MCC's
authorizing legislation, ``[a]fter consultation with the Board, the
Chief Executive Officer may suspend or terminate assistance in whole or
in part for a country or entity * * * if * * *
[[Page 47622]]
the country or entity has engaged in a pattern of actions inconsistent
with the criteria used to determine the eligibility of the country or
entity * * *.'' Because of data lags, this pattern of behavior need not
be captured in the indicators for MCC to take action.
Relationship to Legislative Criteria
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific
selection criteria. As indicated above, a set of objective and
quantifiable policy indicators is used to establish eligibility for MCA
assistance and measure the relative performance by candidate countries
against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility
ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by
at least one of the seventeen objective indicators.
Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific indicators
appear in parentheses below next to the corresponding criterion set out
in the Act.
Section 607(b)(1) Just and democratic governance, including a
demonstrated commitment to:
1. Promote political pluralism, equality and the rule of law
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and Accountability, and Rule
of Law);
2. Respect human and civil rights, including the rights of people
with disabilities (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, and Voice and
Accountability);
3. Protect private property rights (Civil Liberties, Regulatory
Quality, Rule of Law, and Land Rights and Access);
4. Encourage transparency and accountability of government
(Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Voice and Accountability, Control
of Corruption, Rule of Law, and Government Effectiveness); and
5. Combat corruption (Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Rule of
Law, and Control of Corruption).
Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, including a demonstrated
commitment to economic policies that:
1. Encourage citizens and firms to participate in global trade and
international capital markets (Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Trade Policy,
Business Start-Up, and Regulatory Quality);
2. Promote private sector growth (Inflation, Business Start-Up,
Fiscal Policy, Land Rights and Access, and Regulatory Quality);
3. Strengthen market forces in the economy (Fiscal Policy,
Inflation, Trade Policy, Business Start-Up, Land Rights and Access, and
Regulatory Quality); and
4. Respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions
(Civil Liberties and Voice and Accountability).
Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the people of such country,
particularly women and children, including programs that:
1. Promote broad-based primary education (Girls' Primary Education
Completion and Public Expenditure on Primary Education);
2. Strengthen and build capacity to provide quality public health
and reduce child mortality (Immunization Rates, Public Expenditure on
Health, and Natural Resource Management); and
3. Promote the protection of biodiversity and the transparent and
sustainable management and use of natural resources (Natural Resource
Management).
Annex A to Report: Indicator Definitions
The following 17 indicators will be used to measure candidate
countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section
607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to
which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to
promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of
poverty; and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCA funds.
The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather they measure
policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable economic growth.
The indicators were selected based on their (i) relationship to
economic growth and poverty reduction, (ii) the number of countries
they cover, (iii) transparency and availability, and (iv) relative
soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are developed
by independent sources.
Ruling Justly
1. Civil Liberties: A panel of independent experts rates countries
on freedom of expression; association and organizational rights; rule
of law and human rights; and personal autonomy and economic rights.
Source: Freedom House.
2. Political Rights: A panel of independent experts rates countries
on the prevalence of free and fair elections of officials with real
power; the ability of citizens to form political parties that may
compete fairly in elections; freedom from domination by the military,
foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies and
economic oligarchies; and the political rights of minority groups.
Source: Freedom House.
3. Voice and Accountability: An index of surveys/expert assessments
that rates countries on: the ability of institutions to protect civil
liberties; the extent to which citizens of a country are able to
participate in the selection of governments; and the independence of
the media. Source: World Bank Institute.
4. Government Effectiveness: An index of surveys/expert assessments
that rates countries on the quality of public service provision; civil
servants' competency and independence from political pressures; and the
government's ability to plan and implement sound policies. Source:
World Bank Institute.
5. Rule of Law: An index of surveys/expert assessments that rates
countries on the extent to which the public has confidence in and
abides by the rules of society; the incidence of violent and nonviolent
crime; the effectiveness, independence, and predictability of the
judiciary; and the enforceability of contracts. Source: World Bank
Institute.
6. Control of Corruption: An index of surveys/expert assessments
that rates countries on the frequency of ``additional payments to get
things done;'' the effects of corruption on the business environment;
``grand corruption'' in the political arena; and the tendency of elites
to engage in ``state capture.'' Source: World Bank Institute.
Encouraging Economic Freedom
1. Inflation: The most recent average annual change in consumer
prices. Source: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic
Outlook database.
2. Fiscal Policy: The overall budget deficit divided by GDP,
averaged over a three-year period. The data for this measure relies
primarily on IMF country reports with input from U.S. missions in host
countries, or is provided directly by the recipient government where
public IMF data is outdated or unavailable. All data is cross-checked
with the IMF's World Economic Outlook database to try to ensure
consistency across countries and made publicly available. Source:
International Monetary Fund Country Reports, National Governments, and
the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook database.
3. Business Start-Up: An index that rates countries on the time and
cost of complying with all procedures officially required for an
entrepreneur to start up and formally operate an industrial or
commercial business. Source: International Finance Corporation.
4. Trade Policy: A measure of a country's openness to international
trade based on weighted average tariff
[[Page 47623]]
rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. Source: The Heritage
Foundation.
5. Regulatory Quality: An index of surveys/expert assessments that
rates countries on the burden of regulations on business; price
controls; the government's role in the economy; foreign investment
regulation; and many other areas. Source: World Bank Institute.
6. Land Rights and Access: An index that rates countries on: The
extent to which the institutional, legal, and market framework provide
secure land tenure and equitable access to land in rural areas and the
time and cost of property registration in urban and peri-urban areas.
Source: The International Fund for Agricultural Development and the
International Finance Corporation.
Investing in People
1. Public Expenditure on Health: Total expenditures on health by
government at all levels divided by GDP. Source: The World Health
Organization.
2. Immunization Rates: The average of DPT3 and measles immunization
rates for the most recent year available. Source: The World Health
Organization.
3. Total Public Expenditure on Primary Education: Total
expenditures on primary education by government at all levels divided
by GDP. Source: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and National Governments.
4. Girls' Primary Completion Rate: The number of female students
enrolled in the last grade of primary education minus repeaters divided
by the population in the relevant age cohort. Source: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
5. Natural Resource Management: An index made up of four
indicators: Eco-region protection, access to improved water, access to
improved sanitation, and child (ages 1-4) mortality. Source: The Center
for International Earth Science Information Network and the Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22331 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P