RAP 2017 > Chapter 2: Performance of WBG
RAP 2017 - Chapter 2: Performance of World Bank Group
This chapter discusses the performance of projects across three World Bank Group institutions – the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA – and also presents Country Strategy outcomes.
- The World Bank exceeded the corporate target for project outcome ratings by volume but fell below by number of projects during FY14–16.
- One element of the World Bank performance rating (quality of supervision) showed improvement and exceeded the corporate target by volume, while the other (quality at entry) remained below the corporate target.
- Outcome ratings have improved in country contexts traditionally seen as challenging, although both outcome and World Bank performance ratings were lower in these settings than in other country. contexts.
- Among the most important factors associated with outcome ratings for World Bank environment projects were the measurement of outcomes and the presence of economic analysis.
- Development outcome ratings of International Finance Corporation (IFC) investment projects decreased from CY11-13 to CY14-16, as did ratings for IFC front-end work quality and IFC role and contribution. Development effectiveness ratings of IFC advisory projects also decreased. In both advisory and investment projects, the ratings decline was associated with the continued weakness in the quality of IFC’s upfront work. A joint Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)-IFC working group delved into the root causes of the decreases in ratings, and IFC has started implementing initiatives to address shortcomings identified, but outcomes of these initiatives are too early to tell.
- Development outcome ratings of Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) projects remained unchanged for the FY11–16 period, but MIGA’s performance could be improved by addressing shortcomings relating to assessment of risk to development outcome, data capture, and documentation.
- Many of the factors of performance of the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA projects are fully within each institution’s control. These include, for example, quality of project design, quality of supervision, quality of the project’s results chain, analytical work, and incorporation of lessons learned.