Performance of the African Development Bank Group (AfDB) as a regional economic development partner in West Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the performance of the African Development Bank Group (AfDB) as advisor to African governments on Economic policy and planning. The thesis focuses on countries within the Economic community of West African States (ECOWAS). Ghana, a member of the ECOWAS countries, is singled out as a case study for the analysis. To perform the analysis, the thesis examines the purpose for the establishment of the AfDB, its mission as well as sources of funding and projects. The AfDB relationship with other multilateral development institutions, specifically the World Bank Group is assessed, in terms of the levels of capitalization and lending windows. To effectively guide what to measure, the Universalia model of organizational Assessment, developed by Professors Charles Lusthaus and Gary Anderson of the Department of Administration and Policy Studies at McGill University, is adopted for this study. Four factors were assessed: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and financial viability of the AfDB. \n \nThis thesis concludes that the AfDB is an institution in the process of (re) defining its focus and seeking to establish itself among its member states. The AfDB has been in the shadows of the World Bank Group, the IMF and other multilateral institutions. Overall the AfDB has so far played a limited role in national policy dialogue with low visibility and minor contributions within the West African region. Moreover, in Ghana the AfDB has been criticised for being over-responsive to incumbent governments to the extent that it sometimes becomes inconsistent with the need for a firmer, more fundamental and coordinated stand in policy dialogue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".