Why is independence so important? The simple answer is trust. Public institutions, such as the World Bank Group, need to account for the resources entrusted to them and the results they promised to achieve. Self-reporting and Open Data are essential to increasing trust. So is independent evaluation which validates the truthfulness of self-reporting and delivers greater in-depth analyses to understand the reasons for achievements and shortfalls. As one of my predecessors, Yves Rovani, put it in 1988: "Internally, our independence helps ensure the choice of subjects, access to information, and candor of reporting necessary for accessing accountability and for drawing fully on the benefits of experience. Externally, it contributes to the credibility of the Bank's achievements by demonstrating publicly its openness and willingness to be the first to recognize its own shortcomings."

Contrary to providing a second opinion, independent evaluation assesses, as objectively as humanly possible, the success and failure of policies and interventions, and reports critical findings without fear of repercussion. Independence, for that matter, serves to safeguard this objectivity of evaluation.

How best then to limit subjectivity and influence over evaluation? It sounds straight-forward: get people who are external to the institution to evaluate it, as implied in the Washington Post article U.S. push for outside oversight over the World Bank. The "internal – external" question can be very basic: you are "internal" when you work for the institution whose policies and interventions are evaluated, or you are not an employee and you are "external".  Underlying the idea that "external" is more independent are assumptions that being outside the line of command and pressures within the institution, separate from corporate culture and group think, enhances independence and impartiality, because interests might be less vested.

Independence has been a constant in my career as evaluator. I have worked for many different institutions, each of which managed the quest for impartiality in different ways, but the fundamental principles were the same: reduce biases to the greatest extent possible and report on success and failure, even when "bad news" is not welcome.

Recognizing the reality of these pressures and the need to manage them as well as perceptions of independence, extensive discussions about evaluation were held within the World Bank Group in 1973 – many of which were led by the U.S. government.  These discussions resulted in the establishment of an evaluation function outside of the institutional structure responsible for operational matters. Two years later, in 1975, independence was further strengthened. The Director General, Evaluation, reports directly to the Bank’s shareholders – the Executive Board – and has limits on the terms of service with no right to further employment at the World Bank. Other aspects that can limit independence – the choice of what is evaluated, the budget, and freedom to publish reports without censorship – were all addressed with similar measures. These principles became accepted as "gold standards" in the evaluation community and were later adopted by regional development banks and other international finance institutions.

Is this "external" enough? Admittedly, in all of my positions, I have been an "internal" evaluator – in that I was employed by the institution - and worked with "external" evaluators in varying roles. Yes, the external evaluators bring a different perspective and are further removed from implicit norms. They might be more impartial, although there is no guarantee of that.

Most importantly, it takes an outsider a lot longer to understand institutions, find information, establish trust, and become effective influencers.

IEG’s long-term agenda allows us to have the greatest impact on the World Bank’s development effectiveness by making strategic choices about what is evaluated, conducting evaluations that are innovative and cutting edge and that influence stakeholders during the evaluation and not just once the report is issued. We are then able to share lessons gained from experience to foster learning in the World Bank Group and with its partners. 

Our long-standing history of independence and the institutional measures in place to safeguard it have both been recognized as instrumental to increasing the credibility of the World Bank Group, which is more than an external evaluation could do.

Comments

Submitted by Medi Moungui on Mon, 02/10/2014 - 02:06

Permalink
I have read this post and I feel that the key question is far from being answered. If the internal Evsluation office which generally manages evaluations does not guarantee independence, it will simply not work and donors' satisfaction is not guaranteed. Independence is first of all a personal trait and a state of mind. Building also comes with time. Evaluation work performed by an unknown individual with very little reputation will receive mix appreciation.

Submitted by Caroline Heider on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 02:25

In reply to by Medi Moungui

Permalink
Medi, you are right in that the "state of mind" is a very important aspect of independence. Without integrity and courage to speak truth to power, no systems can be of use. As a matter of fact: on paper, a system might give the impression of independence, while it actually is not exercised. This is why building a strong system that reinforces behavioral independence is so essential.

Submitted by Todor Dimitrov on Wed, 04/09/2014 - 01:06

Permalink
Very interesting post, highlighting that the issue may seem simple but it is not. On several occasions in the past, this issue was raised, assuming that external means independent, an obvious oversimplification. In addition to the good points already made here, I wish to add a couple more: 1) There are plenty of examples when external evaluations failed to be useful or credible, very often because because of the lack of a strong and independent commissioning authority (read sound independent internal evaluation unit); 2) Independence is not a stand alone goal but is an instrument to make the evaluations useful and effective. There are many cases of sufficiently independent external evaluations that failed to be effective due to insufficient understanding/empathy of the institutional and project context, as well as the feasibility / realism of the respective recommendations.

Submitted by Ms S Wijesinha on Mon, 04/21/2014 - 07:19

Permalink
My gut feeling towards having lasting peace is like an Insurer getting a New Business and doing Policy Servicing. and getting new business in the meantime (eg International Relations)keeping away from embargoes and sanctions etc. is like trying to get new business while trying to maintain lasting peace and sustainability. Sri Lanka

Submitted by Julz on Thu, 07/23/2015 - 21:34

Permalink
Well done arcitle that. I'll make sure to use it wisely.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.