The African peer review mechanism (APRM): an assessment of concept and design

Abstract

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has been proposed as a key element of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). It is important that the APRM be debated thoroughly in terms of concept and design. This paper is a contribution to the debate. The paper derives design criteria for peer review mechanisms after looking at some functioning examples. These criteria are—competence, independence and competition. It is argued that, while the APRM is a welcome addition to pan‐African institutional structure, its design will have to be improved for it to be truly successful. First, APRM should greatly narrow the scope of its reviews if it is to deliver competent assessments. Second NEPAD should devote significant resources to allow civil society in the reviewed country to do assessments of their own, and to critique the APRM assessment.

Notes

Ravi Kanbur, T. H. Lee Professor of World Affairs and Economics, Cornell University, 309 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853‐7801, USA.

See Ravi Kanbur, The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD): An Initial Commentary [www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/POVNEPAD.pdf]; Ravi Kanbur, NEPAD Commentary: The First Wave [www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/NEPRev.pdf].

I discuss its role in addressing the court of world opinion, and its role in African peer review, in the broader context of NEPAD as an international public good, in: Ravi Kanbur, Conceptualizing RFI's versus GFI's [www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/RFI%27sGFI%27s.pdf].

All the APRM documents referred to in this paper are available on the NEPAD website: www.touchtech.biz/nepad/

These countries are: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Gabon, Mauritius, Mali and South Africa.

See African Peer Review Mechanism (base document) [www.nepad.org/documents/49.pdf]. This is African Union, Assembly of Heads of State and Government, AHG/235 (XXXVIII), Annex II.

See African Peer Review Mechanism, ibid.

African Union, Assembly of Heads of State and Government, AHG/235 (XXXVIII), Annex I.

See Objectives, Standards, Criteria and Indicators for the APRM [www.nepad.org/documents/110.pdf].

See www.oecd.org/home/

See www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2003/pn03139.htm

See www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/index.htm

These criteria are not new, novel or surprising. Indeed, the base document of the APRM mentions two of them: ‘Every review exercise carried out under the authority of the Mechanism must be technically competent, credible and free of political manipulation.’ The contribution here is to develop these criteria in the context of other experiences, and to then to assess the APRM design with respect to the criteria.