The Republic of Seychelles Systematic Country Diagnostic
The Seychelles Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) aims to identify the most pressing constraints to inclusive, sustained growth in Seychelles, based on a comprehensive search for, and analysis of, evidence. The SCD is presented using a slide deck...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/191181499447495374/Seychelles-Systematic-Country-Diagnostic http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27559 |
| Summary: | The Seychelles Systematic Country
Diagnostic (SCD) aims to identify the most pressing
constraints to inclusive, sustained growth in Seychelles,
based on a comprehensive search for, and analysis of,
evidence. The SCD is presented using a slide deck which lays
out the analysis and results. This document provides a brief
overview of the approach taken, and sets the stage for the
SCD. It also provides additional information: six selected
supplementary topical notes, and annexes (data diagnostic,
summary of consultations, and sources). The framework
adopted by the SCD takes as its starting point that
Seychelles is a successful, high-income, small island state.
The country now seeks to secure the sustainability of its
development progress to date, to accelerate this progress,
and to address a high level of public concern being
reflected in political discourse over disparities in incomes
and opportunities. The SCD examines Seychelles’ economic
growth characteristics, the characteristics of poverty and
income distribution (inclusion), and the risks to
environmental, social and macroeconomic sustainability. The
approach is systematic in that it attempts to be as
comprehensive as possible, within the constraints of the
available data, by harnessing the existing evidence and
conducting new analysis where feasible, informed by
consultations. Finally, the SCD sorts the 13 constraints
identified into five top priorities, five additional
priorities, and a further three areas which should be
considered for priority action, subject to confirmation from
additional analysis (‘likely priorities’). This
prioritization was based on an assessment of how important
each constraint was, directly, to meeting the relevant
challenge, indirectly, through its potential impact in
helping to loosen other constraints (complementarity), the
strength of the evidence base on the importance of the
constraint, and, finally, the attainability of addressing
the constraint (reflecting factors such as cost, technical
difficulty and timeframe). |
|---|