Management of the World Bank thanks the Independent Evaluation Group for the report Early-Stage Evaluation of the Multiphase Programmatic Approach. The evaluation assesses the performance of the multiphase programmatic approach (MPA) in accordance with the expectations outlined in the 2017 Board paper. It examines the MPA’s design, early implementation, and effectiveness in supporting coherence, continuity, learning, and adaptation. Despite its limitations, this early-stage evaluation is relevant and timely, particularly given the growing use of MPAs and their potential role in supporting Global Challenge Programs.

Overall

Management welcomes the report’s finding that MPAs have successfully met expectations on learning and continuity objectives, noting positive indications of support in these areas. Since the introduction of MPAs in 2017, their use has risen steadily across the World Bank, with most nonemergency MPA financing directed toward eligible countries of the International Development Association, focusing on infrastructure and sustainable development. MPAs have been used across all World Bank Regions. The report also finds that vertical MPAs that progressed beyond their initial phase maintained continuous support, and both vertical and horizontal MPAs provided flexibility in the timing of subsequent phases to align with country-specific needs. Furthermore, most MPAs have strong learning agendas, and evidence shows that lessons learned have effectively influenced follow-up phases of both horizontal and vertical MPAs, with many perceiving increased effectiveness in learning within this framework.

Management recognizes the report’s finding highlighting the need to enhance the coherence and adaptation objectives of MPAs to strengthen the effectiveness of the approach; however, it notes that the evaluation is based on the expectations outlined in the 2017 Board paper and reflects an early stage of implementation. The focus of the evaluation is on assessing whether the MPAs meet the Board expectations in terms of design and functioning. Management notes that the context in which the evaluation is conducted (2024) has changed significantly since 2017. For instance, COVID-19 had a profound impact on development, and the effective use of MPAs during this period provided valuable lessons that have strengthened the approach in appropriate contexts. Furthermore, the vision and mission of the Bank Group have evolved with the implementation of the Evolution Roadmap and the establishment of six Global Challenge Programs. As a result, the Board’s expectations regarding the use, impact, scale, and anticipated effectiveness of the MPA approach have shifted significantly since 2017.

Implications

Management acknowledges that the ability to deliver quickly and at scale may be limited by the complexity of evolving MPA designs. The use of MPAs during the COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan may have created an expectation that MPAs can always deliver with speed and scale. These emergency MPAs benefited from key fiduciary and operational flexibilities that were critical to their success, enabling rapid disbursement and swift achievement of objectives. However, nonemergency MPAs can only deliver with speed and scale if intentionally designed with these characteristics in mind. Clear communication is essential for setting realistic expectations and helping clients understand both the opportunities and complexities of an MPA, and management is committed to communicating the benefits and risks of MPAs to clients from the outset.

Management acknowledges the report’s findings on coherence, particularly as they underscore the importance of retaining operational flexibility in MPA deployment. While management concurs with the report’s conclusion that political consensus around a long-term objective or strategy can facilitate the implementation of vertical MPAs, it emphasizes that this should be seen as a factor that enhances success rather than a mandatory condition. Similarly, management agrees with the report’s conclusion that regional organizations or platforms can enhance the success of horizontal MPAs. In their absence, management notes that horizontal MPAs can still be pursued, provided alternative mechanisms with similar functions are incorporated into the MPA design. Regarding anchoring MPAs in Country Partnership Frameworks, management believes this may not yet be fully defined at the Country Partnership Framework preparation stage. It is essential to maintain flexibility—particularly when deciding whether to pursue the MPA approach and, if doing so, which type of MPA to use (vertical or horizontal).

Management agrees with the implications of the report’s finding on continuity and learning, which suggests that careful task team leader (TTL) selection and specialized training are important factors in ensuring stability and long-term continuity in MPAs. Management will improve TTL selection processes; take stock of MPA learning agendas to ensure that they are adequately tailored to project activities; provide expanded guidance, training, and networking opportunities to equip TTLs with the necessary skills and knowledge; and facilitate smooth transitions between TTLs to ensure program continuity.

Management acknowledges the findings on outcomes and clarifies that MPAs were never intended to aim for higher-level outcomes than other instruments. The finding that MPAs are at the same level of outcome orientation as comparators is insightful and demonstrates the World Bank’s strong focus on achieving outcomes across all its instruments. However, management wishes to clarify that the 2017 Board paper never suggested that the MPA approach would exceed other approaches in terms of outcome orientation. Instead, the Board paper positioned MPAs as an approach designed to foster an explicit long-term focus, facilitating the development of programs that could span multiple sectors, borrowers, and political cycles. This long-term focus was envisioned as a means to build consensus among stakeholders and support sustainability through transitions in political administrations and governance structures. Management is committed to continuing to ensure that MPA objectives and targets are set at an appropriate level of ambition. These objectives will be adjusted as needed throughout the MPA’s lifespan, allowing for recalibration based on evolving circumstances and opportunities for greater ambition.

Management acknowledges the findings on adaptation, which show that restructuring under MPAs is not significantly different from that under non-MPAs, but cautions that the evaluation does not fully capture the phased adaptability of MPAs, making it premature to conclude that they are underperforming in this area. The evaluation found no evidence that adaptation under MPAs differs from non-MPAs, based on the limited use of project restructuring. However, this narrow focus overlooks the phased design of MPAs, where each phase builds on lessons learned from earlier ones.

The phased approach allows MPAs to adapt to changing circumstances over time, a flexibility that is not fully captured by looking solely at within-phase restructuring. Additionally, adaptation involves more than just formal restructuring. Operational teams implementing MPAs regularly learn and adjust during implementation. The adaptive learning aspect of the MPA is a benefit recognized not only in Regional MPAs but also in MPAs within countries seeking to learn, adapt, and benchmark subnational governments in the implementation of this approach.