Solomon Bennett Freehof (1892-1990) was one of America's most distinguished, influential, and beloved rabbis. Ordained at Hebrew Union College in 1915, he was of the generation of rabbis from east European immigrant backgrounds who moved Reform Judaism away from its classical form toward a renewed appreciation of traditional practices. Freehof himself was less interested in restoring discarded rituals than in demonstrating how the Reform approach to Jewish religious practice was rooted in the Jewish legal tradition (halakhah). Opposed to any attempt to create a code of Reform practice, he nevertheless called for Reform Judaism to turn to the halakhah, not in order to adhere to codified law, but to be guided in ritual and in all areas of life by its values and its ethical insights. For Reform Jews, Jewish law was to offer "guidance, not governance," and this guidance was to be provided through the writing of responsa, individual rulings based on legal precedent, written by an organized rabbinic authority in response to questions about real-life situations. After World War II, the earlier consensus about what constituted proper observance in a Reform context vanished as the children of east European immigrants flocked to new Reform synagogues in new suburbs, bringing with them a more traditional sensibility. Even before Freehof was named chairman of the Central Conference of American Rabbis Responsa Committee in 1956, his colleagues began turning to him for guidance, especially in the situations Freehof recognized as inevitably arising from living in an open society where the boundaries between what was Jewish and what was not were ambiguous or blurred. Over nearly five decades, he answered several thousand inquiries regarding Jewish practice, the plurality of which concerned the tensions Jews experienced in navigating this open society-questions concerning mixed marriage, Jewish status, non-Jewish participation in the synagogue, conversion, and so on-and published several hundred of these in eight volumes of Reform responsa. In her pioneering study, Friedman analyzes Freehof's responsa on a select number of crucial issues that illustrate the evolution of American Reform Judaism. She also discusses the deeper issues with which the movement struggled, and continues to struggle, in its attempt to meet the ever-changing challenges of the present while preserving both individual autonomy and faithfulness to the Jewish tradition.

This paper proposes the adoption of a framework that would supplement the 1997 Fund’s Guidance Note on the Role of the Fund in Governance Issues, adopted by the Executive Board (the “1997 Governance Policy”). While the 1997 Governance Policy remains an appropriate basis for the Fund’s work in this area, further guidance from the Executive Board is needed to ensure that the objectives of that policy are achieved. Experience over the past 20 years has underscored the critical impact that governance issues can have on the Fund’s work. In particular, there is evidence that corruption can have a pernicious effect on a country’s ability to achieve sustainable, inclusive economic growth. As requested by the Executive Board, the proposed Framework for Enhanced Engagement by the Fund (“Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement”) is designed to promote more systematic, effective, and candid engagement with member countries regarding those governance vulnerabilities, including corruption, that are judged to be macroeconomically critical. Perhaps most importantly, the application of the Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement to all members on a systematic basis will enhance evenhandedness. Finally, the Framework is designed to strengthen the global fight against corruption by promoting governmental measures that prevent private actors from offering bribes or providing services that enable the proceeds of corrupt acts to be concealed, particularly in the transnational context.

The education sector is vulnerable to a broad range of risks that can threaten development effectiveness. Risks can spring from several factors: substantial share of education in total government expenditure, opportunities for discretionary decision making, political interference and patronage networks, weak sector institutions, and nontransparent and inefficient systems. Vulnerabilities may exist at any stage and among any group of actors from policy makers to education providers and to education beneficiaries. Weak accountability increases the likelihood of misaligned priorities, resource leakages, and poor service delivery. This guidance note aims to explain key features of the education sector and identify entry points for mapping governance risks.

The Background Notes in this Supplement provide essential context and analysis needed to understand the problem of governance and corruption, its impact on the economies of Fund members, and the history and nature of Fund engagement on these issues. They also seek to support the assessment of the Fund’s overall approach to promoting good governance and reducing corruption—including through the lenses of key stakeholders—with a view to identifying strength and closing any remaining gaps.

The electricity sector is vulnerable to a broad range of risks that can threaten development effectiveness. Risks can spring from the magnitude of the sector’s capital investments, opportunities for discretionary decision making and rent seeking by stakeholders, weak policy and regulatory frameworks, capacity w eaknesses of sector entities, and inefficient systems. Governance risk vulnerabilities can cut across policy formulation, regulation, planning, financial management, procur ement, and sector operations. This guidance note aims to explain key features of the electricity sector and identify entry points for mapping governance risks.