proposed increases in total, so networks disagreed with a slight majority of them. They disagreed with only 3% (1 of 32) of decreases, and 2% (9 of 453) of unchanged ratings.<sup>9</sup> Network reviewers are less likely to take issue with a proposed rating when it is accompanied by a more thorough write-up. As shown in equation 4.1, each one-grade increase in write-up grade is associated with a (statistically significant) reduction of 2.2 percentage points in the probability of a disagreement. By far the most important predictor of disagreement is the ratings increase dummy. The likelihood of disagreeing rises by 45 percentage points, other things equal, when a ratings increase is proposed.

Regional differences are small. The omitted category is ECA. Coefficients for the other 5 regions are negative, but small in magnitude (1.5 percentage points or less). Only the MNA coefficient is (borderline) significant. Question effects are more substantial. Other things equal, reviewers were significantly less likely to disagree with ratings for questions 14 and 15 than for question 12. The substantial revisions to the question 15 criteria leading into the 2011 CPIA exercise may be responsible for lower write-up quality grades (Table 2) and thus for more requests for additional information in the review process (Table 3, equation 3.2). But results in Table 4 suggest that they do not appear to have produced more frequent disagreements over ratings.

Equation 4.2 excludes the ratings increase dummy from the model. Most notably, the explanatory power of the model plunges from .52 to only .23. Also, regional effects become much more strongly negative (relative to ECA) and more significant in equation 4.2, where we are not controlling for the fact that ECA proposes a far greater number of ratings increases than the other regions. This finding is consistent with IEG (2010), which reports that network reviewers disagreed more often with ECA’s proposed ratings, in its analysis of all 16 questions for the 2007 CPIA.

Word count of write-ups is not significant in equation 4.1, but in equation 4.2, where ratings increases are not controlled for, it is associated with an increase in the likelihood of disagreement over ratings. Regional staff may anticipate network disagreement with more dubious proposals for an increase, and provide longer write-ups in attempting to justify them.

Ratings level is also significant in equation 4.2, but not in equation 4.1 where proposed increases are controlled for. When ratings level is dropped from the model in equation 4.3, the R<sup>2</sup> declines even further (from .23 to .17), and regional differences are further accentuated. Taken together, results in equations 4.1-4.3 indicate that the greater propensity of network reviewers to disagree with ECA ratings is mostly attributable to the fact that this region compared to the other five proposes more high ratings, and more increases.

Results are broadly similar for the sub-sample of IDA countries. In equation 4.4, which replicates equation 4.1 for that sub-sample, the coefficient on proposed increases remains highly significant, but is somewhat smaller in magnitude. For the IDA sample, in-country CMUs are associated with a significantly lower probability of disagreement.

> 9 In several other cases, network reviewers recommended increasing sub-ratings, but with no implications for the overall question rating.

16