Overview Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024 Managing Results in an Uncertain World © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org COVER PHOTO Created using GPT-3 using the prompt, “The concept is that things work differently for different groups. The image should be abstract.” November 15, 2024. OTHER PHOTOS Adapted from Shutterstock/Annuitti Adapted from Shutterstock/Stocklekkies Adapted from Shutterstock/NatalyFox EDITING AND PRODUCTION Amanda O’Brien GRAPHIC DESIGN Rafaela Sarinho This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Contents Contents click on individual headings for immediate access to the related section Overview 5 Key Findings 6 Trends in Performance 11 Challenges Influencing Performance 16 Operational and Country Program Design 18 Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Adaptation 23 Client Quality and Capacity Building 25 Results Monitoring 26 References 28 Box Validation Frameworks and Methodologies of the Independent Evaluation Group  Box O.1.  7 Figures Figure O.1. Distribution of Outcome Ratings by COVID-19 Exposure  9 Figure O.2. Comparison of Average Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool Ratings 10 Figure O.3. World Bank Average Rating and Percentage Rated MS+ 11 Figure O.4. Trends in Development Outcomes for International Finance Corporation Investment Projects, Calendar Years 2013–23  12 Figure O.5. Trends in Development Effectiveness for International Finance Corporation Advisory Services Projects, FY13–23 13 Figure O.6. Development Outcomes for Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Guarantee Projects, FY13–23  14 Figure O.7. World Bank Group Performance at the Country Program Level 15 Figure O.8. Challenges in Institutional Capacity of Stakeholders and Project Factors  16 Figure O.9. Most Prevalent Factors Linked to Development Outcomes, Throughout the International Finance Corporation and by Subgroup  17 Figure O.10. Share of Projects with an Objective on Expanding Access to Services 19 Figure O.11. Associations Between Work Quality, Project Preparation and Design, and Development Effectiveness, FY21–23 20 Figure O.12. Density Distribution of Project Preparation Days Between Initiation and Approval 21 Figure O.13. Average Elapsed Time from Mandate to First Disbursement Versus Development Outcome 22 Figure O.14. World Bank Group Collaboration at the Country Program Level 23 International Finance Corporation Advisory Services Development Effectiveness, Work Quality, and Project Preparation and Design  Figure O.15.  24 Figure O.16. Achievement Rates of Outcomes  27 Overview The Results and Performance of the World Bank country programs, which allows more in-depth Group (RAP) 2024 report by the Independent discussion of performance trends and relevant Evaluation Group (IEG) is the 14th annual report topics for each institution. RAP 2024 includes in the series. The RAP series aggregates and in- innovative analysis of (i) processing time for terprets evidence on World Bank Group perfor- IFC investment projects, (ii) risk identification mance, mainly using IEG’s validations of World and mitigation, (iii) IFC work quality and ad- Bank, International Finance Corporation (IFC), ditionality, (iv) the Country Opinion Surveys, and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and (v) results measurement in IFC investment (MIGA) self-evaluations of projects and country projects. “The evidence programs. These validations summarize the ex- RAP 2024 can inform the learning and account- presented in this tent to which the Bank Group institutions have ability processes of the Bank Group’s Board of report focuses on achieved key aspects of project and country pro- Executive Directors. The evidence presented in gram design, implementation, and results. significant changes this report focuses on significant changes and The RAP series follows the principles of con- substantive patterns in performance relevant and substantive tinuity, symmetry, and innovation. RAP 2024 to the institutions of the Bank Group, but it patterns in maintains continuity with earlier reports by does not identify causal relationships. Drawing performance reviewing performance over a 10-year period on this evidence, the Board can use RAP 2024 based on ratings from IEG validations using for learning because it helps the Board further relevant to the standardized methodologies (box O.1). It main- examine the challenges facing Bank Group institutions of the tains the principle of symmetry across institu- institutions and highlights the levers that tions by analyzing common or similar factors can be pulled to enhance their performance. Bank Group.” linked to performance while also acknowledg- Furthermore, RAP 2024 aids accountability be- ing their differences. Hence, RAP includes sep- cause it helps the Board understand trends and arate chapters for World Bank, IFC, MIGA, and changes in portfolio performance. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 5 Key Findings RAP 2024 is produced at a time when the work RAP 2024 highlights several cross-cutting find- of the Bank Group is increasingly exposed to ings. Although the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA risky contexts and periodic shocks. The Bank have different business models and different Group has committed to giving increased evaluation methodologies for operations and priority and resources to lower-income coun- projects (box O.1), some common themes and tries and countries classified as fragile and findings emerge that are outlined in this sec- conflict-affected situations (FCS), where most tion. While the ratings themselves cannot be of the world’s poor people reside (World Bank compared across institutions because different 2024c, 2024d). The COVID-19 pandemic and methodologies are used, rating trends can be subsequent shocks to global food and fuel compared. prices have highlighted the importance of building resilience and responding proactive- ly to domestic and external shocks. Climate change is likely to make such shocks more fre- “The Bank Group quent and more severe. Previous IEG evidence has committed has described areas where the Bank Group to giving increased has successfully responded to increased risks and maintained performance, for example, priority and resources through rapidly adapting its operational and to lower-income country portfolios, adjusting lending volumes, countries and countries and using new digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic (World Bank 2022c, classified as fragile 2024a, 2024b). Building on these findings, this and conflict-affected report highlights challenges confronted in situations.” risky contexts at a portfolio level and suggests responses that can help enhance performance. 6 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview Box O.1. Validation Frameworks and Methodologies of the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group institutions employ different financial performance to ensure the sustainability contributions to key outcomes (for example, poverty frameworks and methodologies when rating of IFC investments and Multilateral Investment reduction, increased learning, or reduced gender operations. World Bank operations use an objective- Guarantee Agency guarantees. Bank performance inequality). As highlighted in recent thematic based methodology to derive project performance ratings in the World Bank and work quality in IFC evaluations, projects with less ambitious objectives ratings. As such, the outcome rating is based on the are rated separately from outcomes; although the (for example, increasing access to services or other extent to which the objectives stated at design (or terminology is different, they both measure how well outputs) may be rated successful even in the absence formally modified) were achieved. The World Bank’s implementation and design issues were addressed, of evidence on improvement in higher-level outcomes. self-evaluation and the Independent Evaluation and these are largely within the control of the Given the fundamental differences in methodologies Group’s validation ratings are aggregated across institutions. across the institutions, ratings cannot be compared operations (for example, outcome ratings are based among the World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral on a six-point scale, ranging from highly satisfactory All rating methodologies align with good practice Investment Guarantee Agency. However, the trends to highly unsatisfactory). Similarly, the International standards for evaluating public and private sector in ratings can be compared. Finance Corporation (IFC) advisory services project projects, as established by the Evaluation Cooperation Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank performance ratings are derived from an objective- Group of multilateral development banks, except for 2024a, 2024b, 2024e. based methodology, which establishes minimum technical assistance or advisory services, which do thresholds for rating and assessing projects’ not yet have established good practice standards effectiveness. Country programs also follow an (ECG 2012). Further explanation of rating objective-based methodology. By contrast, evaluation methodologies is provided for each Bank Group systems and performance ratings for IFC’s investment institution at the beginning of the relevant chapters. projects and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s guarantee projects both are objective While project and country program ratings are based and include market or industry benchmark- important proxies for the Bank Group’s development based methodologies, particularly for measuring effectiveness, they are not direct measures of Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 7 The Bank Group’s performance ratings have COVID-19 has not yet affected the overall plateaued or declined, which is linked to expo- ratings of the operations of the World Bank sure in riskier country contexts. For the World (figure O.1), although the performance of IFC Bank, ratings for operations have recently pla- advisory services and IFC investment proj- teaued because of increased portfolio exposure ects with financial institutions has been neg- in FCS. For IFC and MIGA, recent declines have atively affected. The Bank Group’s response to been driven primarily by declining outcome rat- COVID-19 appears to have mitigated negative ings in International Development Association impacts on the ratings of World Bank projects. (IDA) and blend countries (without significant For IFC investment projects with financial in- portfolio shifts toward IDA and blend or FCS). stitutions, some clients were able to adapt to “The Bank Group’s Bank Group country program development COVID-19, but the pandemic detracted from performance outcome ratings are 19 percentage points lower the success of other clients. For IFC advisory for both IDA-eligible countries, compared with services, performance suffered despite proac- ratings have those eligible under the International Bank tive support and restructurings. plateaued or for Reconstruction and Development, and Bank Group performance can be improved even declined, which is 21 percentage points lower for FCS countries with risks increasing. First, the quality of the than for non-FCS countries. In contrast, Bank linked to exposure design of operations and projects is strongly Group performance in country program ratings associated with better results. Quality of design in riskier country has remained at the same levels in FCS, IDA, can include realism and relevance of objectives contexts.” and blend countries. 8 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview with respect to country context and appropriate Figure O.1. Distribution of Outcome Ratings by COVID-19 Exposure sequencing of interventions. Second, across the Bank Group portfolio, effective risk 6 identification and proactive risk management— particularly for risks under direct or indirect 5 Bank Group control—are linked with stronger Outcome rating performance. This finding is particularly 4 important in FCS, where the analysis of World Bank Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool 3 ratings shows that larger risk reductions during implementation were associated with better 2 outcomes, whereas failure to mitigate risks 1 No exposure (N = 167) Partial exposure (N = 782) Full exposure (N = 90) “For IFC investment projects with COVID-19 exposure financial institutions, some clients were able to adapt to COVID-19, but the pandemic detracted from Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The average outcome ratings of operations with no exposure, partial exposure, and full exposure are 4.28, 4.27, the success of other clients.” and 4.27, respectively. No exposure = no part of operations lifetime spent in COVID-19 emergency period; partial exposure = some part of operations lifetime spent in COVID-19 exposure, but less than 100 percent; full exposure = entire lifetime of operation is within COVID-19 emergency period. The COVID-19 emergency period is FY20–23. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 9 contributed to lower outcomes (figure O.2). Third, client capacity challenges are linked to lower performance across institutions, particularly in FCS or in IDA-eligible countries. Developing public and private clients’ organizational capacity to adapt to changing Figure O.2. Comparison of Average Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool Ratings contexts and implement fit-for-purpose solutions (for example, in procurement), Overall implement coordination mechanisms, and Political and governance establish performance reporting systems can Overall contribute to better outcomes. Macroeconomic Political and governance Sector strategies and policies The Bank Group’s implementation of results Macroeconomic Technical design of project program or and monitoring could enhance outcome ratings Sector strategies policies Institutional capacity for implementation and contributions to development effective- of project Technical design and or program sustainability Institutional capacity for implementation ness. Gaps in the design and implementation of Fiduciary and sustainability results monitoring are persistent concerns in Environment andFiduciary social project and Country Program Evaluations and Environment and social Stakeholders in IEG thematic evaluations. Monitoring and Stakeholders 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 evaluation practices are subject to World Bank 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 influence and are correlated with outcome SORT rating SORT rating ratings. Despite improvements over the past Overall Overall Africa decade, more than one-third of World Bank Africa FCS FCS operations rated by IEG have inadequate moni- Source: World Bank operations data. toring and evaluation practices. MIGA is behind Note: SORT rating is on four-point scale, with larger number indicating higher risk. Data include 1,613 investment project financing lending on submitting self-evaluations of guarantee projects closed during FY16–23. FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; SORT = Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool. 10 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview in Performance Trends in Trends Performance projects, which hinders both accountability Performance ratings across the Bank Group’s and learning. IFC could also improve the mea- institutions have not consistently increased surement of outcomes, particularly mar- over the long term.1 For the World Bank, project ket outcomes (that is, changes in the market ratings have plateaued after a steady increase beyond those narrowly linked to the project). over the past decade. IFC project ratings re- IEG validations identified that 83 percent of covered in the past five years but remain lower country programs over the past 10 years had than they were a decade ago. MIGA project rat- major inadequacies in their results frameworks. ings declined slightly over the past decade. Figure O.3. World Bank Average Rating and Percentage Rated MS+ a. Average rating and percentage rated MS+ a. Average rating and percentage rated MS+ 6 100 MS+ (%) 6 100 MS+ (%) “Gaps in the design (%)(%) 5 80 MS+ 5 80 and implementation rating MS+ rating rated 4 Average 60 rated Average of results 4 Average 60 projects Average projects 3 40 monitoring are 3 40 of of persistent concerns Share 2 20 Share 2 20 in project and 1 0 1 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 0 Country Program 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Fiscal year of project closing 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fiscal year of project closing Evaluations.” b. Source: Independent FCS outcome Evaluation Group. rating versus Bank performance rating b. FCS outcome rating versus Bank performance rating Note: MS+ = moderately satisfactory or above. 6 6 5 5 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview Bank performance 11 Bank performance ing » World Bank project outcome ratings increased » The development outcome ratings of IFC invest- from an average rating of 3.8 (out of a maximum ment projects improved over the medium term, 6060 rating of 6) in 2013 to 4.3 in 2020, then plateaued from 41 percent mostly successful or better (calen- 5353 5353 5050 51 51 4949 4848 4747 at this level between FY 2020 and FY23. World Bank dar year [CY]16–18) to 51 percent mostly success- 4444 41 41 performance has trended gradually upward since ful or better (CY21–23), but 40they 40 remain lower than FY13, reaching 4.3 in FY23 (figure O.3). 6060 a decade ago (53 percent in CY13–15;53 53 they were 53 53 49 49 50 50 51 51 48 48 figure O.4). IFC work quality 44 44 47 47 declined ratings have 2020 41 41 over the past decade, from 62 percent satisfactory Projects rated (%) Projects rated (%) 40 40 60 60 53 53 or better (CY13–15) to 55 percent 530 53 0 (CY21–23). 49 49 50 50 51 51 47 47 48 48 44 4420 20 Figure O.4. Trends in Development Outcomes for International41 Finance 41 Corporation Investment Projects rated (%) Projects rated (%) 40 40 Projects, Calendar Years 2013–23 2020 0 0 60 53 53 60 49 20 20 50 51 53 47 48 53 60 44 50 51 4040 53 49 48 53 Projects rated (%) 41 47 50 51 49 44 48 40 41 47 20 20 44 41 40 0 0 40 6060 CY13–15 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY19–21 CY20–22 CY20–22 CY21–23 CY21–23 20 40 40 = (n ( n235) = (n ( = 235) n250) (n ( = 250) = = 259)(n ( n259) = = 271)(n ( n271) = n273) (n ( = 273) = n268) (n ( = 268) = n230) (n ( = 230) = n227) = 227)(n ( = n211) = 211) 20 XPSR XPSR program program year year (%) (%) 20 20 20 rated (%) Highly Highly successful successful Mostly Mostlyunsuccessful unsuccessful Mostly successful Mostly successful rated 0 6060 rated Projects 0 CY13–15 CY13–15CY14–16 CY14–16CY15–17 CY15–17CY16–18 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY18–20CY19–21 CY19–21CY20–22 CY20–22 CY21–23 CY21–23 or or better better Successful Successful = Unsuccessful Unsuccessful Projects 0 40 40 (n (n = 235) = 235) (n = (n250) = 250) (n = (n = 259) 259) (n = (n271) = (n = 271) (n = 273) 273) (n = (n268) (n = 268) (n = 230) (n = 230) (n = 227) 227) (n = (n211) = 211) Projects XPSR XPSR program program Mostly Mostly year year successful successful 20 Highly unsuccessful Highly unsuccessful 20 20 Highly Highly successful successful Mostly Mostly unsuccessful unsuccessful Mostly Mostly successful successful 60 60 CY13–15 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY20–22 CY21–23 CY20–22 CY21–23 or better or better 40 ((n n== 235) 235) ((n n= 250) ((n = 250) n== 259) 259) ((n n= Successful 271) Successful = 271) ((n n= n= = 273) 273) ((n = 268) 268) ((n n= 230) = 230) Unsuccessful n= ((n =Unsuccessful 227) ((n 227) n= 211) = 211) 40 XPSRMostly XPSR program program Mostly year year successful successful 40 Highly Highly unsuccessful unsuccessful 60 Highly successful Highly successful Mostly unsuccessful Mostly unsuccessful Mostly successful Mostly successful CY16–18 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY20–22 CY21–23 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY15–17 or better or better 60 60 CY13–15 Successful (n = 271)Successful (n = 235) CY14–16 (n = 250) CY16–18 (n = 273) CY18–20 (n = 259) CY17–19 CY15–17 (n = 230) CY20–22 (n = 268) CY19–21 n (Unsuccessful (n = 211) = 227) CY21–23 Unsuccessful (n = 235) CY14–16 CY13–15 CY16–18 271) CY17–19 (n = 250) (n = XPSR ( CY15–17 n = 273) CY18–20 (n = 259) program (n = 268) CY19–21 year (n = 230) CY20–22 (n = 227) CY21–23 (n = 211) Mostly (n = 271)Mostly (n = 235) (n = 250) successful successful (n = 259) (n = 273) n = 227)unsuccessful (n = 268) (n = 230) (Highly Highly (n = 211) unsuccessful XPSR program year XPSR program year Highly successful Mostly unsuccessful Mostly successful Source: Independent Evaluation Group, Expanded Highly Project Supervision successful Report Mostly database. unsuccessful or better Mostly successful Successful Highly successful Unsuccessful Mostly unsuccessful Mostly or successful better Note: Trend line shows mostly successful or better. CY = calendar year; Successful XPSR = Expanded Project Supervision Unsuccessful Report. or better Mostly successful Successful Highly unsuccessful Unsuccessful Mostly successful Highly unsuccessful Mostly successful Highly unsuccessful 12 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 6060 5353 4949 4444 41 41 4040 » The development effectiveness ratings of they remained 6060 53 53 below 61 percent in FY13–15 53 53 49 49 48 48 IFC advisory services improved over the 2020 ratings improved (figure O.5). Work quality 44 44 47 47 41 41 medium term, from 41 percent mostly suc- from 48 percent satisfactory or better (FY16– Projects rated (%) Projects rated (%) 40 40 60 to 50 percent cessful or better (FY16–18) 60 53 53 18) to 59 percent (FY21–23). 53 53 0 0 51 51 49 49 50 50 mostly successful or better (FY21–23), but 44 44 47 47 48 48 20 20 41 41 Projects rated (%) Projects rated (%) 40 40 2020 Figure O.5. Trends in Development Effectiveness for International Finance Corporation 0 0 Advisory Services Projects, FY13–23 20 20 4040 Projects rated (%) 61 60 20 20 61 58 60 55 60 0 0 52 58 55 60 61 50 6060 47 52 60 50 58 55 CY13–15 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY16–18 CY 60 47 41 38 52 40 40 50 = (n ( n235) (n ( = 235) = n250) (n ( = 250) = n259) = 259)(n ( = n271) = 271)(n 40 47 41 38 XPSR XPSR pr 40 20 41 20 38 40 Highly Highly successful successful 6060 Mostly Mos 20 CY13–15 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY19–21 CY2C “For IFC and MIGA, 20 40 40 (n (n = 235) (n = (n = 235) 250) (n = = 250) (n259) = 259) (n (n = Successful = 271)Successful (n = 271) (n = 273) 273) (n (n = 268) = 268) (n = (n = Unsuc 230) 230) Unsu( (n = (%)(%) 20 XPSR XPSR program program Mostly Mostly year year successful successful rated Highly High declining project rated (%) 0 Projects 0 Highly Highly successful successful Mostly Mostly unsuccessful unsuccessful rated 60 60 ratings in IDA and Projects 0 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY13–15 CY14–16 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY15–17 CY16–18 CY17–19 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY18–20 CY19–21 CY20–22 CY21–23 CY20–22 CY21–23 ((n n= 235) ((n = 235) n== 250) 250) ((n n= 259) ((n = 259) n= 271) Successful = 271) n= ((n Successful = 273) n= 273) ((n = 268) 268) ((n n= 230) = 230) n= ((n =Unsuccessful Unsuccessful 227) ((n 227) n= 211) = 211) Projects 20 blend countries 20 XPSR program program XPSRMostly year year successful successful Mostly Highly Highly unsuccessful unsuccessful 20 were the major Highly successful Highly successful unsuccessful Mostly unsuccessful Mostly Mostly successful Mostly successful 40 or better or better 40 Successful Successful Unsuccessful Unsuccessful contributor to 40 Mostly successful Mostly successful Highly unsuccessful Highly unsuccessful 60 overall declines 60 FY13–15 FY14–16 FY15–17 FY16–18 FY17–19 FY18–20 FY19–21 FY20–22 FY21–23 n = 185) (FY14–16 60 (FY13–15 n = 154) (FY15–17 n = 145) n = 169) (FY17–19 (FY16–18 n = 184) ( FY18–20 n = 207) (FY19–21 n = 185) FY20–22 (n = 185) (FY21–23 n = 169) in development (n = 185) (n = 154) (n = 145) FY13–15 FY14–16 FY15–17 (n =PCR (n = 184) 169)program year FY16–18 FY17–19 FY18–20 PCR program year (n = 207) (n = 185) (n = 185) (n = 169) FY19–21 FY20–22 FY21–23 Mostly (n = Highly 185) (n = 154) (n = 145) successful (n = 169) (n unsuccessful = 184) (n = 207) Mostly (n = 185) (n = 185) (nsuccessful = 169) outcome ratings.” Mostly or bettersuccessful Highly successful Mostly PCR unsuccessful program year or better Successful Unsuccessful Mostly successful Highly successful Successful Mostly unsuccessful Unsuccessful or better Mostly successful Highly unsuccessful Successful Mostly successful Unsuccessful Highly unsuccessful Mostly Source: Independent successful Evaluation Highly unsuccessful Group, PCR database. Note: Trend line shows mostly successful or better. PCR = Project Completion Report. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 13 » The development outcome ratings of MIGA of the intended foreign investment–level » The development outcomes improved guarantee projects declined slightly, from outcomes. (Project-level outcomes refer, for in Bank Group country programs from 69 percent satisfactory or better in FY13–18 to example, to benefits to stakeholders, society, 68 percent moderately satisfactory or above 68 percent satisfactory or better in FY18–23 the environment, and the economy. Foreign in FY13 to 78 percent moderately satisfactory (figure O.6). In the 15 MIGA guarantee projects investment–level outcomes refer, for example, or above in FY20. Bank Group performance that IEG validated during FY21–23, MIGA fully to creating positive demonstration effects in country programs was stagnant through or partially achieved 81 percent of the intended that signal opportunities to other market FY20, with low ratings observed in approxi- project-level outcomes, but only 66 percent participants or potential capital providers.) mately 40 percent of country programs. Figure O.6. Development Outcomes for Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Guarantee Projects, FY13–23 80 80 69 69 71 71 68 68 67 67 68 68 65 65 60 60 40 40 Excellent Projects rated (%) Projects rated (%) Satisfactory 20 20 Partly unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 0 0 Satisfactory or better 20 20 40 2013–18 2014–19 2015–20 2016–21 2017–22 2018–23 40 (n = 71) (n = 75) (n = 81) (n = 72) (n = 67) (n = 60) 2013–18 2014–19 2015–20 2016–21 2017–22 2018–23 (n = 71) (n = 75) (n = 81) PER program year (n = 72) (n = 67) (n = 60) PER program year Source: Independent Evaluation Group,Excellent Partly Multilateral Investment Guarantee unsatisfactory Agency database. Satisfactory or better Note: The Multilateral Investment Satisfactory Guarantee Excellent Agency Project Evaluation Report guidelines were changed in FY19, replacing a four-point scale for development outcome ratings with a six-point scale. Unsatisfactory Partly unsatisfactory The six-point rating scale, applied to projects starting in FY20, was converted to a four-point one as follows: highly successful = excellent; successful and mostly successful = satisfactory; mostly unsuccessful = partly unsatisfactory; and highly unsuccessful and Satisfactory unsuccessful = unsatisfactory. PER = Project Evaluation Report. Unsatisfactory 14 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview World Bank operations and Bank Group country to FCS increased from 31 percent in FY20 to For IFC and MIGA, declining project ratings programs in FCS are exerting downward pres- 37 percent in FY23, magnifying the effect of their in IDA and blend countries were the major sure on overall outcome ratings. The plateau lower average ratings on the overall World Bank contributor to overall declines in development in World Bank outcome ratings is mostly due average outcome rating. The share of country outcome ratings. For IFC investment projects, to an increase in the share of FCS operations in programs in FCS with development outcomes rat- the development outcome ratings of IDA and the portfolio, which have lower ratings on av- ed moderately satisfactory or above is 55 percent, blend projects declined from 54 percent mostly erage for most of the FY13–23 period. The pro- compared with 76 percent in non-FCS countries successful or better (CY13–15) to 46 percent portion of projects with full or partial exposure between FY13 and FY23. (CY21–23), and the outcome ratings of FCS Figure O.7. World Bank Group Performance at the Country Program Level World Bank Group performance (CLRV rating) Factors with a strong influence WBG Performance (CLRV rating) Relevance of country program Factors a strong influence Risk identification Relevance of Country Program Not rated Risk mitigation Risk Identification Poor Risk Mitigation Fair Support to implementation Support to Implementation Good Other important factors Other important factors Superior Quality of results framework Quality of Results Framework evelopment Partners Collaboration Development partner collaboration One WBG approach One World Bank Group approach 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 25 50 75 100 Share of rated CLR Validations Share of rated CLRVs (%) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Not rated Poor Fair Good Superior Note: The first bar represents the Bank Group performance rating as validated by the Independent Evaluation Group in the CLRV. The remaining bars were coded by the Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024 team. A total of 162 CLRVs are represented, from all 81 countries with at least 2 CLRVs reviewed by the Independent Evaluation Group in FY13–24. Factors are considered to have a strong influence on Bank Group performance if they display a difference significant at the 5 percent confidence level in a t test of equality of means between the subgroups of CLRVs with Bank Group performance rating of good or superior and fair or poor. CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 15 in IDA and blend countries declined sharply, Bank Group has limited or no influence); institu- “The World Bank responded from 50 percent mostly successful or better to tional capacity of clients and stakeholders (over 18 percent over the same period. For IFC which the Bank Group has indirect influence); to the pandemic by increasing advisory services, ratings of projects in IDA and factors related to project design, finance, and restructuring and applying and blend countries declined from 59 percent monitoring and evaluation (over which the Bank lessons from past crises.” mostly successful or better in FY13–15 to Group has direct influence; figures O.7 and O.8). 43 percent in FY21–23, even though there were fewer projects in these countries over the latter period. The share of FCS projects in the overall active IFC investment portfolio has remained Figure O.8. Challenges in Institutional Capacity of Stakeholders and Project Factors stable (at 11 percent); however, the number of projects in FCS has been increasing since FY21. Development outcome ratings of MIGA projects Human resources and organizational capacity Human resources and organizational capacity Human resources and organizational capacity in IDA and blend countries declined from Design 74 percent satisfactory or better to 50 percent Design Human resources and organizational capacity Design between FY13–18 and FY18–23, and ratings Coordination and engagement Design Coordination and engagement for MIGA projects in Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Challenge Coordination and engagement Challenge declined from 72 percent satisfactory or better Project finance Coordination and engagement Project finance Challenge to 50 percent over the same period. Project finance Commitment and leadership Project finance Commitment and leadership Commitment and leadership Challenges Influencing Project data and monitoring Project data and monitoring Commitment and leadership Project data and monitoring Performance 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 data and Project400 2000 monitoring 600 800 1,000 0 200 400 600 (no.) Projects 800 1,000 Projects (no.) Projects (no.) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 A wide variety of challenges affected the perfor- Projects with factor of negative sentiment Projects with factor of negative sentiment Projects (no.) mance of Bank Group operations and projects. Projects with Projects factor with negative sentiment of mentioned factor Projects with factor mentioned Projects with factor of negative sentiment RAP undertook an analysis of the key challeng- Projects with factor mentioned Projects with factor mentioned es that affected project outcomes, including those linked to country context (over which the Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 16 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview Country context challenges were common » The most prevalent challenges for MIGA implements the project (which occurred in throughout the portfolio but were more acute projects were cost overruns and construc- 31 percent of projects and included the com- in FCS: tion delays (which occurred in 46 percent of pany’s ability, technical expertise, and track projects reviewed, mostly in real sector proj- record), and legal or regulatory risk (which » The World Bank identified institutional ca- ects), quality of the company that owns and occurred in 27 percent of projects). pacity and financial management challenges in 75 and 76 percent of operations, respective- Figure O.9. Most Prevalent Factors Linked to Development Outcomes, Throughout the ly. In FCS, political interference and electoral International Finance Corporation and by Subgroup cycles were intense challenges, identified in 74 and 80 percent of operations, respectively. Client quality IFC-wide » The Client quality and IFC-wide most prevalent challenges for IFC in- Business risk quality Client IFC-wide Business risk vestment projects overall—and in several Economic issuesBusiness risk Economic issues subgroups (IDA and blend, IDA and blend in Client quality Economic issues blend Client quality Business risk quality and FCS, and Latin America and the Caribbean)— Client blend IDA IDA and Business risk blend Economic issues blend IDA were heightened business and economic risks Business risk Economic issues Subgroup (figure O.9). Risks related to business models, quality issues Economic Client Subgroup Client quality cyclicality, or the operating environment oc- Business risk quality Subgroup blend Client in FCS Business risk IDA and blend Economic issues in FCS and curred in 25 percent of projects reviewed, and Business risk in FCS Economic issues and Asset quality IDA risks related to economic issues occurred in Economic issues Asset quality IDA Civil unrest Asset quality 24 percent of projects. In IDA and blend proj- Civil unrest Civil unrest Client quality ects in FCS, civil unrest (which occurred in LAC Client quality Business risk quality Client 21 percent of these projects) and asset qual- LAC Business risk LAC Economic issuesBusiness risk ity (which occurred in 25 percent of projects Economic issues Economic-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 issues and included factors such as nonperforming -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30Count-20 -10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 (no.) of projects -40 -30 -80 -70 -60 -50 Count of -20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 -10 (no.) projects loans in a financial institution’s portfolio) Negative influence Positive influence Net effectof Count on development projects (no.) outcomes Negative influence Positive influence Net effect on development outcomes were prevalent. Negative influence Positive influence Net effect on development outcomes Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The order of factors within subgroups follows the IFC-wide order. FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IDA = International Development Association; IFC = International Finance Corporation; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; negative influence = the identified factor constrained the project performance; net effect = sum of positive influence and negative influence; positive influence = the identified factor aided the project performance. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 17 COVID-19 has affected the implementation of downsized. Financial institutions with strong World Bank operations but not its performance. risk management, sound credit underwriting, For operations that have closed since FY20, and flexible business strategies were better an increasing proportion of their life span able to withstand crises such as COVID-19. occurred since the beginning of the COVID-19 Conversely, COVID-19 was the most important pandemic, yet the outcome ratings of these factor in explaining why the development operations are similar. Recent IEG evaluations effectiveness of evaluated IFC advisory services and RAP 2023 suggest that the World Bank projects declined during FY21–23, despite responded to the pandemic by increasing proactive actions during project design and restructuring and applying lessons from past supervision. The time frame for adaptation may crises. These actions led to 60 percent of World also have been a factor: IFC advisory services Bank country programs substantially realigning projects are typically implemented in three “Financial institutions with their portfolios to address the evolving needs years, whereas IFC investments are typically strong risk management, arising from the pandemic (World Bank 2022c). evaluated between five and seven years after sound credit underwriting, and financing is provided. Although some IFC clients were able to adapt flexible business strategies to the challenges created by the COVID-19 Operational and Country pandemic, the consequences of the pandemic were better able to withstand detracted from the success of other clients. Program Design crises such as COVID-19.” COVID-19 was identified as a factor in 19 percent of IFC investment projects in CY20– The World Bank has opportunities to reinforce 23. However, it was among the top factors performance by improving aspects of opera- only in the Financial Institutions Group. The tional design, especially in FCS. More successful consequences included drops in business World Bank operations, for example, grounded volumes, banks forced to curtail loans to small their design in practical operational lessons and and medium enterprises, and clients being insights, aligned objectives with on-the-ground 18 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview realities, and sequenced tasks responsively. Since FY20, a growing share of World Bank op- erations in FCS improved alignment with their contexts by having more objectives focus on Figure O.10. Share of Projects with an Objective on Expanding expanding access to services (figure O.10), in “More successful Access to Services addition to continuing efforts to preserve in- stitutional strengths. Moreover, IEG evalua- World Bank 100 tions have indicated the importance of World operations, for 100 Bank efforts in, for example, the Geo-Enabling example, grounded 80 Initiative for Monitoring and Supervision in (%) (%) 80 reinforcing elements of performance that their design in of projects 60 FCS are relevant for the design of operations (World of projects practical operational 60 FCS 40 Bank 2021). The operations designed or restruc- Share lessons and insights, 40 Non-FCS tured to include a focus on access to services Share 20 Non-FCS in FCS received significantly higher average aligned objectives 20 outcome ratings, although increased access 0 with on-the-ground 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 does not necessarily contribute to improved 2017 2018 of project closing Fiscal year2020 2019 2021 2022 2023 realities, and Fiscal year of project closing outcomes—for example, improved learning or gender equality (World Bank 2024a, 2024b). sequenced tasks Nonetheless, in some FCS contexts, sustain- responsively.” Source: Independent Evaluation Group. ing service access may be both appropriate and Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations. more feasible. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 19 Figure O.11. Associations Between Work Quality, Project Preparation and Design, and Development Effectiveness, FY21–23 (share of projects, percent) a. Work quality and development effectiveness b. Project preparation and design and development effectiveness a. Work quality and development effectiveness b. Project preparation and design and development effectiveness High 9 41 High 18 31 Development Development effectiveness High 9 41 effectiveness High 18 31 IFC work quality (which includes front-end Low Development 32 18 Low Development 37 14 work, particularly project preparation and effectiveness effectiveness Low 32 18 Low 37 14 design, and project supervision and admin- Low High Low High istration) is strongly associated with the Low High Low High Project preparation performance of IFC investment and adviso- Work quality and design ry services projects. A review of 19 IFC in- Work quality Project preparation and design vestment projects whose work quality was rated unsatisfactory or whose development outcomes were rated highly unsuccess- c. Project implementation and supervision and development effectiveness ful during CY21–23 found three front-end c. Project implementation and supervision and development effectiveness work quality factors that contributed to High 12 38 Development weak development outcomes: (i) market as- effectiveness High 12 38 sessment (15 projects); (ii) client quality Low Development 25 25 effectiveness (10 projects); and (iii) assumptions, finan- Low 25 25 cial models, and project costs (9 projects). Low High “IFC work quality is strongly In addition, in FY21–23, the work quality Low Project implementation High associated with the performance of IFC advisory services projects was and supervision 59 percent satisfactory or better, whereas only Project implementation and supervision of IFC investment and advisory 9 percent of projects with low work quali- services projects.” ty ratings achieved positive development effectiveness ratings (figure O.11). Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 20 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview While project preparation times must be suf- Figure O.12. Density Distribution of Project Preparation Days Between ficient to ensure strong design and imple- Initiation and Approval mentation readiness, World Bank operations Mean (732.96) with very long preparation times (above the Median (613.00) 0.0010 Mean (732.96) 90th percentile) have lower outcomes. “While (223.00) preparation times must project 10th percentile Median (613.00) The World Bank has recently made efforts 0.0010 90th percentile (1,393.40) to shorten project preparation times be sufficient to ensure strong design 10th percentile (223.00) 90th percentile (1,393.40) 0.0008 (World Bank 2024c), which currently average and implementation readiness, two years from initiation to approval, includ- 0.0008 World Bank operations with very ing 10 percent of projects being prepared in less than seven months (including emergency oper- 0.0006 long preparation times (above the 0.0006 ations and much of the COVID-19 response), 90th percentile) have lower outcomes.” Density and 10 percent of projects requiring nearly Density four years or more. Operations with the lon- 0.0004 0.0004 gest preparation times (more than 1,393 days) Mean (732.96) are more likely to encounter significant chal- Median (613.00) lenges with elements of their design and the 0.0010 0.0002 0.0002 10th percentile (223.00) development of institutional capacity. These 90th percentile (1,393.40) operations also have significantly lower out- come, Bank performance, and monitoring and 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 evaluation ratings on average. Shorter prepara- 0 0 500500 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,500 3,500 4,000 4,000 tion time was not statistically associated with Preparation days (no.) 0.0006 Preparation days (no.) lower outcomes, however, which likely reflects the complex relationships between preparation Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Density Note: This graph displays the density distribution of preparation time of 2,213 investment project financing operations closed during time, design quality, and implementation read- FY13–23. The histogram represents the frequency of projects across different preparation time intervals. The density scale normalizes the 0.0004 data, ensuring that the area under the curve sums to one. Overlaid on the histogram is a kernel density estimate curve, which provides a iness (figure O.12). smooth, continuous representation of the probability density function. 0.0002 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 21 For IFC investment projects, spending sufficient 411 standard advisory services projects evaluat- more than one sector (with three-quarters of all time on front-end work may be particularly im- ed and validated by IEG (FY13–23), 67 projects collaboration in energy, agriculture, infrastruc- portant in challenging contexts and for complex (16 percent) did not record a Concept Note date. ture, financial, or investment). The institutions projects. Average IFC investment processing Collaboration among Bank Group institutions has have yet to consistently leverage each other’s ca- time is just over 12 months, with little differ- improved over the past decade but could be further pacities across Country Partnership Framework ence between mostly successful or better and strengthened (figure O.14). The Bank Group has periods and in multiple sectors. IEG evidence mostly unsuccessful or worse projects. However, sought to improve synergies on country programs suggests that successful Bank Group collabora- in challenging contexts (specifically, in Africa, between institutions for almost three decades. tion on country programs rests on its institutions Middle East and North Africa, FCS, and IDA and Bank Group collaboration has increased: before working toward a shared view of the priorities blend), processing mostly successful or better FY16, less than half of country programs demon- within a given sector. This includes a shared un- IFC investment projects takes a few months strated collaboration in at least one program, derstanding of20actors, opportunities and con- 18 longer than processing mostly unsuccessful or compared with 85 percent since then. However, 20 straints to grow the sector, what needs to be done Average elapsed time (months) 16 worse projects and projects that are especially only half of Country Partnership Frameworks 18 to address constraints, and the alignment of ob- Average elapsed time (months) 14 complex (such as those in the Infrastructure in- since FY16 have demonstrated collaboration in 16 jectives across both public and private sectors. 12 14 dustry group; figure O.13). Reducing key front- 10 end work quality and preparation factors (such 12 to First Disbursement Versus Development Figure O.13. Average Elapsed Time from Mandate 8 Outcome 10 as market assessment; client quality; or assump- 8 6 20 tions, financial models, and project costs) may 6 4 18 2 contribute to weaker development outcomes. For Average elapsed time (months) 16 4 0 example, assumptions not based on feasibility 14 2 IFC-wide Africa Middle East FCS studies or market assessments could contribute 12 0 IFC-wide Africa Middle East FCS Subgroup IDA and blend Infrastruc MS+ negatively to development outcomes. Finally, 10 Subgroup MS+ IFC advisory services cannot accurately mea- 8 MU- 6 sure preimplementation scoping time because 4 not all advisory services projects go through the 2 Concept Note stage (for example, some subproj- 0 IFC-wide Africa Middle East FCS IDA and blend Infrastructure ects of approved programmatic umbrellas or Subgroup “fast-track” projects that were follow-ons from Source: Independent Evaluation Group. MS+ MU- previous engagements). In addition, out of the Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IDA = International Development Association; MS+ = mostly successful or better; MU- = mostly unsuccessful or worse. 22 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview Figure O.14. World Bank Group Collaboration at the Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Adaptation Country Program Level Risk identification and mitigation measures and on broader factors related to market devel- 100 13 100%10090 13 23 enhance responses to challenges and are as- opments in the sector and the country’s macro- 27 30 23 90 80 27 15 15 43 30 sociated 2+ instances with improved of collaboration outcome ratings. The economic challenges. 80 43 2+ instances of collaboration Share of CLRVs (%) 80% 70 Systematic Operations Risk-Rating Tool helps Share of CLRVs (%) 70 22 Evidence of 1 collaboration Share of CLRVs 60 33 22 25 Evidence of 1 collaboration Adaptive management can help respond to cli- 60 43 25 33 address key challenges the World Bank faces. 60% 50 18 Intended collaboration 43 50 40 18 collaborationand Identifying Intended then mitigating risk through ent challenges in country programs and World 40 Collaboration missed 40% 30 41 3 40 43 the Systematic Collaboration missed Operations Risk-Rating Tool is Bank operations. Adaptive management is an 30 41 3 35 40 43 20 20 35 useful because Not applicable project risk ratings assigned by iterative approach to decision-making where- 2 28 3 3 Not applicable 20% 10 28 by interventions and portfolios are adjust- 10 9 2 33 33 3 management and outcome ratings are correlat- 0 9 3 3 3 0 ed. For example, increases in risk ratings during ed based on evidence and evolving context Q3 Overall High IFC and MIGA Q2 Low IFC and MIGA 0% Q3 Overall High IFC and MIGA Q2 implementation correlate with decreases in (World Bank 2020). As such, it encompasses Low IFC and MIGA l commitments l A 2 3 A commitments ra IG ts Q Q IG ts managing risk effectively, seizing new oppor- commitments ve outcome ratings. Larger risk reductions during commitments M n M n O C/ e C/ e IF itm IF itm implementation were associated with better tunities, and developing fit-for-purpose solu- w m h m Lo om ig H com c outcomes, whereas failure to respond to risks tions. An IEG analysis of Country Opinion Relative Relative to total to World total BankBank Group Group commitments commitments Relative to total World Bank Group commitments contributed to lower outcomes. Operations that Surveys found that when respondents had less identified and mitigated risks undertook, for favorable perceptions of adaptive practices, 2+ instances of collaboration Collaboration missed example, extensive political economy analysis such as responsiveness, flexibility, and acces- Evidence of 1 collaboration Not applicable sibility, the country programs had lower Bank and drew lessons from the World Bank’s previ- Intended collaboration ous operations and economic and sector work. Group performance and development outcome A similar finding arises from a desk-based re- ratings. Furthermore, analysis of text discuss- Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The data are based on the review of 162 CLRVs by the Results and Performance of the view of IEG evaluations and validations in ing adaptive management in operations found World Bank Group 2024 team (all 81 countries with at least 2 CLRVs reviewed by the Independent Evaluation Group in FY13–24). The first bar has all CLRVs, while the remaining bars split country CY20–23 for key factors linked to the perfor- a statistically significant correlation between programs according to the relative size of IFC and MIGA programs as quartiles of the ration between IFC and MIGA commitments and total World Bank Group commitments. Country mance of IFC investment projects. The review positive sentiments on adaptive management programs that were exclusively the International Development Association and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development programs are marked as not applicable. CLRV = showed that, when assessing the risk of invest- and higher outcome ratings. Specific examples Completion and Learning Review Validation; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; Q = quartile. ment projects, IFC must focus on client quality of risk-responsive adaptations included changes Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 23 to scope, timelines, activities, results frame- or motivation (11 projects), change in scope works, budgets, and procurement. Examples or premature termination of advisory ser- “In IFC advisory services projects, of adaptive management outside of risk man- vices (11 projects, 5 of which were at IFC’s ini- however, adaptive management agement included scaling up projects based on tiative, while 6 were not), and project design did not always result in improved lessons learned or supporting new activities (8 projects). development effectiveness ratings, through cost savings during implementation. The consolidation of all Bank Group guarantees under MIGA presents both a risk and an particularly with respect to In IFC advisory services projects, however, adaptive management did not always result in opportunity. Until recently, MIGA provided only restructuring during COVID-19.” improved development effectiveness ratings, political risk guarantees to the private sector particularly with respect to restructuring during COVID-19. To better understand the reasons Figure O.15. International Finance Corporation Advisory Services Development Effectiveness, Work Quality, and Project Preparation and Design for declining IFC advisory services ratings de- 80 spite consistent IFC work quality (figure O.15), 80 IEG undertook a desk review of 31 projects val- 70 70 Project implementation idated by IEG for which development effective- Project implementation and supervision (% S+) and supervision (% S+) ness was rated mostly unsuccessful or worse, but 60 WQ (% S+) 60 WQ (% S+) work quality was rated satisfactory or excellent. Share of projects rated (%) Share of projects rated (%) 50 DE (% MS+) For 25 of these projects, COVID-19 strongly con- 50 DE (% MS+) Project Project preparation preparation tributed to weak development effectiveness. and and design design (%(% S+) S+) 40 40 Nineteen of these projects were restructured, 11 of them explicitly due to COVID-19. Seven 30 30 of these projects were restructured early (be- 20 tween March 2020 and July 2020). Regardless, 20 the restructuring was insufficient: all 11 projects 10 10 received weak development effectiveness rat- ings, demonstrating that adaptive management 0 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 2021–23 2018–20 2017–19 2014–16 2020–22 2016–18 0 2015–17 2019–21 2013–15 2021–23 2018–20 2017–19 2014–16 2020–22 2016–18 was inadequate in these projects. Other preva- 2015–17 2019–21 2013–15 Note: DE = development effectiveness; IFC = International Finance Corporation; lent factors in the weak development effective- MS+ = mostly successful or better; PCR program year PCR = Project Completion Report; ness ratings included the client’s commitment PCR program year S+ = satisfactory or better; WQ = work quality. 24 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview and was responsible for the supervision of institutions, withstand shocks like COVID-19. only environmental and social safeguards and This review of IEG evaluations and validations country risk assessment. The consolidation showed that in challenging contexts where se- of all current World Bank and IFC guarantees lecting high-quality clients may not be feasible, under MIGA may require MIGA to develop the IFC can influence client quality by providing capacity to supervise both public and private support for capacity building. sector guarantees. The World Bank can also undertake institu- tional capacity building to address challenges Client Quality and associated with lower ratings. Various World Capacity Building Bank and external studies have identified insti- tutional capacity as a critical issue for improv- Client selection and complementary capacity ing development effectiveness (OECD 2008; building are powerful levers that IFC can use Otoo et al. 2009; World Bank 2005a, 2005b, to positively influence development outcomes. 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2022a; World Bank Group Client quality includes the ability, technical ex- 2017). In the World Bank, institutional capac- pertise, or track record of the IFC client, includ- ity building means improving the effective- ing the quality of the client management team ness of country development by changing the and their skills, contractor competency, famil- formal and informal rules that structure iarity, and acumen. This factor was highlight- interactions across multiple organizations ed in 41 percent of CY20–23 IFC investment (World Bank 2005b, 2018b; World Bank Group projects that IEG reviewed. It had a positive 2017). RAP 2024 finds that there is a nonlin- “Successful operations influence on IFC investment development out- ear relationship between the number of insti- comes 75 percent of the time overall but less tutional capacity challenges and the outcome often included often for Africa (41 percent) and FCS projects rating. Specifically, the negative effect on extensive efforts (50 percent). Selecting clients with proven or outcome ratings becomes more pronounced to build institutional promising business models, good financials, when there is more than one challenge, with strong risk management frameworks, and flex- a more noticeable downward shift in outcome capacity.” ible business strategies can mitigate business ratings as the number of challenges identi- risk and help clients, particularly financial fied increases from one to three. Substantial Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 25 improvements in outcome ratings can be to fair or below in their most recent Completion result, self-evaluations of these MIGA projects achieved through mitigating institutional ca- and Learning Review Validation. Frequent short- were postponed. The pending self-evaluations pacity risks. Successful operations often in- comings are noted with the intervention logic from MIGA mean that it is difficult to comment cluded extensive efforts to build institutional and the chosen indicators. For example, indica- too definitively on trends in development out- capacity, such as developing formal coordina- tors may focus on inputs or outputs rather than come ratings. tion mechanisms and shared reporting systems. outcomes, or they may be overly reliant on indi- IFC could improve the measurement of cators of operations that fail to capture the full outcomes, particularly market outcomes, by Results Monitoring extent of the country program objectives and recording more complete information about do not properly account for the contributions projects. IEG conducted a desk-based review Gaps in the design and implementation of results of advisory services and analytics, IFC, MIGA, of 173 IFC investment projects evaluated and monitoring are a persistent concern identified policy dialogue, development policy financing, validated by IEG during CY21–23. The review across IEG evaluations. These evaluations in- or the Bank Group’s convening role. Although identified 842 individual outcomes (676 project- clude project and Country Program Evaluations Performance and Learning Reviews often ad- level outcomes and 166 market-level outcomes; covered by RAP and recent IEG thematic evalua- just the results framework, many weaknesses figure O.16). IEG could not verify 96 outcomes, tions (World Bank 2024a, 2024b). remain unresolved. Previous IEG reports raised of which 76 were project-level outcomes and Results frameworks in Country Partnership these concerns and also found that these prac- 20 were market-level outcomes. This represents Frameworks have persistent shortcomings that tices generate incentives not aligned with an 11 percent of the total project-level outcomes and affect their ability to support implementation. outcome orientation at the country level (World 12 percent of the total market-level outcomes. The evidence indicates that a weak results Bank 2020, 2022b). During the RAP 2023 Board discussions, IFC framework is “a key determinant of unsatisfac- MIGA is behind on submitting self-evaluations management noted that the introduction of tory outcome performance at the country pro- of its guarantee projects, which prevents IEG the Anticipated Impact Measurement and gram level” (World Bank 2015, 1). Nevertheless, from having an accurate picture of its over- Monitoring system—an ex ante monitoring 83 percent of Completion and Learning Review all development outcome ratings. A total of tool—in 2017 overcomes the issue of verifying Validations reported major inadequacies in re- 19 MIGA projects are pending self-evaluations outcomes. To assess this assertion, IEG sults frameworks. Moreover, there has been no 2 for the FY21–23 period (45 percent of planned conducted an analysis of 21 projects evaluated substantial improvement in countries with two self-evaluations during this period). Of these and validated by IEG with “live” Anticipated Completion and Learning Review Validations: 19 projects, 11 involved engagements from Impact Measurement and Monitoring scores out of 81 countries, 16 improved their results MIGA’s legal team, including renegotiation of (projects that IFC assigned ex ante Anticipated frameworks to a good rating, while 9 declined possible investment term modifications. As a Impact Measurement and Monitoring scores 26 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview at Board approval). The analysis found that above in FY23, there are few examples of high- 1 A World Bank project’s development outcome rating reflects 22 percent of outcomes did not have an quality practice, and more than one-third of op- the extent to which major relevant objectives were achieved, indicator in the tracking system (17 percent erations remain with inadequate monitoring and or are expected to be achieved, efficiently. For IFC invest- of project-level outcomes and 43 percent of evaluation practices. World Bank projects with ment projects, the development outcome rating reflects the market-level outcomes). Moreover, IFC could challenges in project data and monitoring have extent to which the project achieved its intended develop- lower outcome ratings.Challenges included poorly ment objectives and delivered sustainable results. For IFC not track most market-level outcomes because advisory services, a project’s development effectiveness re- these outcomes did not have indicators or designed or misaligned metrics that failed to flects the extent to which its intended development results indicators were never tracked. Therefore, capture intended outcomes, difficulty setting are achieved, strategically relevant, and efficient. For MIGA 100 the identification and tracking of outcome appropriate targets because of missing baselines, 90 a project’s development outcome reflects guarantee projects, Projects rated (%) indicators, particularly for market outcomes, and low quality of progress reporting. Recent 80 the project achieved its intended devel- the extent to which 70 60and delivered sustainable results. opment objectives remains a challenge. evaluations, including RAP 2021 and RAP 2023, 50 40 have identified opportunities for enhancing in- 2 The Completion and Learning Review Validation (CLRV) was Despite improvements in monitoring and eval- called the Completion 30 and Learning Review Review (CLRR) dicators, data availability and baselines, and re- 20 uation quality over time, one-third of World before May 1, 2023. 10 porting and supervision. 0 Bank operations received ratings of modest or Access to Increased Quality and Competi goods employment affordability (N = 94 negligible. The average monitoring and eval- and services (N = 95) of goods and uation quality rating of investment project Figure O.16. Achievement Rates of Outcomes (N = 220) services (N = 94) financing and Program-for-Results increased 100 100 Project-level outcomes from 2.1 in FY13 to 2.6 in FY20. Since FY20, the 90 90 (%) 80 rated (%) 80 average rating has plateaued between 2.6 and 70 70 Cannot be verified Projects rated 60 60 2.7. This indicates that although 64 percent 50 50 Not achieved Projects 40 40 of operations were rated as substantial and 30 30 Partially achieved 20 20 10 10 Fully achieved 0 0 “World Bank projects with Access to Access to Increased Increased Quality and Quality and Competition Competition Resilience Resilience Integration Integration goods goods employment employment affordability affordability N= ((N = 94) 94) ((N N== 29) 29) N= ((N = 18) 18) challenges in project data and services and services ((N N== 95) 95) of goods of goods and and N= ((N = 220) 220) services services and monitoring have lower N= ((N = 94) 94) outcome ratings.” Project-level outcomes Project-level outcomes Market-level outcomes Market-level outcomes Cannot be Cannot be verified verified Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Not achieved Not achieved Partially achieved Partially achieved Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 27 Fully achieved Fully achieved References ECG (Evaluation Cooperation Group). 2012. Big Book on Evaluation Good Practice Standards. ECG. https://www.ecgnet.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20 Big%20Book%20on%20GPS.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Accra Agenda for Action. OECD. Otoo, Samuel, Natalia Agapitova, and Joy Behrens. 2009. The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development. World Bank. World Bank. 2005a. Building Effective States: Forging Engaged Societies. World Bank. World Bank. 2005b. Capacity Building in Africa: An OED Evaluation of World Bank Support. World Bank. World Bank. 2015. Results Frameworks in Country Strategies—Lessons from Evaluations. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. World Bank. 2017. “What’s Next for Capacity Building in Africa.” Discussion Note. World Bank. 28 Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview World Bank. 2018a. CPIA Criteria 2017. World Bank. World Bank. 2024a. Confronting the Learning Crisis: Lessons from World Bank Support for Basic Education, 2012–22. World Bank. 2018b. Institutional Development Roadmap Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. Handbook: Effective Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Project-Led Institutional Development in the Transport World Bank. 2024b. An Evaluation of World Bank and Sector. World Bank. International Finance Corporation Engagement for Gender Equality over the Past 10 Years. Independent Evaluation World Bank. 2020. The World Bank Group Outcome Group. World Bank. Orientation at the Country Level. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. World Bank. 2024c. “From Vision to Impact: Implementing the World Bank Group Evolution—Update to Governors.” World Bank. 2021. Managing Urban Spatial Growth: Board Report 188790, World Bank. World Bank Support to Land Administration, Planning, and Development. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. World Bank. 2024d. IDA21 Policy Package: The “Lenses” Paper. World Bank. World Bank. 2022a. CPIA Africa: Assessing Africa’s Policies and Institutions. World Bank. World Bank. 2024e. Making Procurement Work Better: An Evaluation of the World Bank’s Procurement System. World Bank. 2022b. Results and Performance of the World Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. Bank Group 2022. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. World Bank Group. 2017. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. World Bank Group. World Bank. 2022c. The World Bank’s Early Support to Addressing COVID-19: Health and Social Response—An Early-Stage Evaluation. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2024  Overview 29