A better Knowledge Bank could strengthen the use of the learning opportunities that are often embedded in lending processes. This is the first recommendation in a new evaluation report by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) assessing how the World Bank learns in lending.

The evaluation couldn’t be timelier, coming on the heels of the 2024 “Knowledge Compact for Action” and the 2021 “Strategic Framework for Knowledge.” The evaluation asks what the World Bank can do to improve the conditions for learning in its financing operations. To answer this question, the evaluation takes a close look at how World Bank teams and managers foster knowledge and learning, drawing on data and evidence from operations, in-depth reviews of 34 operations, and interviews with Bank Task Team Leaders (TTLs) and managers.

We find that the Bank typically approaches learning in a way that is linear, formal, and driven by the project lifecycle. This approach helps create useful knowledge at different stages of the project, but it also creates imbalances, which when corrected, offer opportunities for learning.

World Bank Project Designs are Technically Strong and Build on Diverse Knowledge

Our first finding is that the World Bank’s lending processes create ‘learning moments’ at well-defined points of the project cycle. This happens mostly in the preparation stage, such as concept note and quality enhancement reviews. As a result, the World Bank operations’ designs are almost always informed by relevant and deep technical knowledge.

Moreover, teams source this knowledge from both inside and outside the Bank. We used Artificial Intelligence (AI) and text mining to trace the sources cited in the footnotes of project documents. The analysis found that out of a total number of 3,102 citations in project documents, 41 percent were published by the World Bank or included current World Bank staff as the author or co-author. The remainder, 59 percent, included client governments (13 percent), United Nations agencies (9 percent), and other multilateral institutions, suggesting a widespread use of external knowledge.

Learning Could be Enhanced in the Implementation Phase

Our second finding is that current processes are not ideal for fostering learning during the project implementation phase. Whereas the preparation phase mandates specific technical assessments, the implementation phase often has no such requirements. Opportunities for learning diminish once a project is launched – with some variation.

Program-for-results (PforRs) instruments, for example, have explicit incentives and mechanisms for learning during implementation because of their annual validation of Disbursement-Linked Indicators. This process creates a formal space for knowledge sharing among Bank teams and clients, supported by data on PforRs’ progress toward achieving project outcomes. Similarly, the Multi-Phase programmatic approach, which underpins the new Global Challenge Programs, has in-built requirements for learning during implementation.

In addition, World Bank operations mandate Implementation Completion Reports, but these are underused by teams who frequently view them as tools of compliance rather than of learning and reflection.

Formality can Hinder Learning

Third, we find that some of the most valuable learning opportunities come at the least formalized moments. The structured nature and hierarchical dynamics of some formal meetings tend to limit the free flow of ideas and lessons learned. In contrast, early-stage peer reviews and quality enhancement reviews, which tend to be the least formalized phases of the design and approval processes, often contribute the most valuable exchanges of expertise and knowledge. They offer opportunities for frank and informal exchanges with peer reviewers, which are very valued by teams.

Some Knowledge is More Valued than Other

Fourth, the World Bank approaches sector and operational knowledge much more systematically than country knowledge. Lending processes focus on generating explicit sector knowledge through various technical sector assessments. Additionally, operational knowledge is specific to the World Bank’s policies and procedures. Much of it is codified and made easily available to staff through guidance, trainings, and so on.

In contrast, country knowledge is related to the specific context of the country, its development challenges and political economy, issues related to governance, the capacity of implementing agencies, etc. Country knowledge is hard to ‘organize’ because some of it is confidential and not easily codified. The Bank, therefore, largely relies on tacit knowledge exchanges, which are personal and often challenging to articulate or document, and on relationships with staff located in country offices to ensure that the country knowledge is adequately informing its programs. The unsystematic approach to organizing and sharing country knowledge can easily result in its under-emphasis.

Addressing the Imbalances

Summing up, the World Bank excels at ensuring that its operations are informed by technical knowledge, but it often underemphasizes country knowledge, learning during implementation, and lesson learning ex post. These imbalances often occur by design. Teams and managers respond to the incentives created by the mandated requirements, and these emphasize sector knowledge during the preparation stage.

This insight motivates our recommendation to set clear expectations towards learning throughout the lending cycle. Specifically, there is room to strengthen requirements around mid-term reviews, learning with clients, dropped and cancelled projects, handover notes, and the quality of lessons in Implementation Completion Reports. Revisions to lending procedures and guidance could help the World Bank achieve better learning at these defined moments, which could enhance development outcomes.