Evaluation Purpose and Scope

This evaluation sought to assess the extent to which the key elements of the fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) strategy have enhanced the World Bank Group engagement in countries affected by FCV. It focused on the relevance, implementation, and achievement of objectives of the FCV strategy and the Bank Group’s operational framework along the dimensions of programming, personnel, partnerships, and policies. A future second-phase evaluation by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) will investigate the effectiveness of Bank Group operational engagements in FCV, country-level outcomes, and factors determining performance in more depth. This follow-up study also will seek to address the relevance and effectiveness of operations in the strategy’s four pillars of engagement.

Consistent with this objective, the evaluation covered the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCV systematically and made its findings by examining a broad set of FCV challenges and diverse country contexts. The evaluation covered all pillars identified by the FCV strategy to produce findings from diverse Bank Group approaches to FCV challenges and country experiences, excepting regional spillovers (forced displacement), for all countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) during FY 2015–25. Notably, the evaluation distilled findings related to experiences with preventing conflict and violence and remaining engaged. This broad scope ensured coverage of most recipients of the International Development Association (IDA) FCV Envelope, including all recipients of the 19th Replenishment of IDA (IDA19) and IDA20 Prevention and Resilience Allocations, Remaining Engaged during Conflict Allocations, Turn Around Allocations, and most Windows for Host Communities and Refugees. It also included most of the IDA18 Turn Around Regime and Risk Mitigation Regime recipients. In addition, the evaluation included small island states classified as FCS in its analyses of the universe of FCS data and portfolio without conducting further in-depth analysis.1 Figure A.1 maps the scope of the countries included in the evaluation (green circle) and the FCV allocations, which align with the FCV strategy.

Figure A.1. Evaluation Universe

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure A.1. Evaluation Universe

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IDA18 = 18th Replenishment of the International Development Association; IDA19 = 19th Replenishment of the International Development Association; IDA20 = 20th Replenishment of the International Development Association; PRA = Prevention and Resilience Allocation; RECA = Remaining Engaged during Conflict Allocation; RMR = Risk Mitigation Regime; SIS = small island states; TAA = Turn Around Allocation; TAR = Turn Around Regime; WHR = Window for Host Communities and Refugees.

The evaluation covered 42 FCS that were on the Bank Group’s FCS list during any year in the FY15–25 period (figure A.2). The evaluation period (FY15–24) encompassed the changes to the Bank Group’s evolving role and instruments implemented after a 2014 IEG evaluation up to the implementation of the Bank Group 2020–25 FCV strategy. Including these changes in the evaluation period allowed the team to observe broader changes in implementation over time and run a period analysis, dividing the evaluation into pre- and poststrategy periods (FY15–19 and FY20–24, respectively).

The evaluation focused on FCV in FCS and did not cover FCV characteristics that were not captured by the FCS list. Therefore, crime and violence were not covered by the evaluation. Non-conflict-related crime and violence are prominent challenges in countries not on the FCS list and therefore require a different scope and different methods. The evaluation also did not cover subnational conflict, regional spillover effects in non-FCS such as forced displacements, or any other FCV characteristics not captured by the FCS list.

The evaluation covered the Bank Group, focusing on new analysis on the World Bank while building on previous International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) evaluations. The 2020–25 FCV strategy applied to the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA, so this evaluation covered all Bank Group institutions. However, IEG evaluated IFC’s and MIGA’s support to private investment in FCS in 2022. This evaluation did not duplicate those efforts but leveraged the existing evaluation evidence, updated core metrics such as IFC and MIGA commitments and development effectiveness ratings, and distilled new evidence on approaches for engaging with the private sector through country deep dives.

The evaluation was part of an ongoing series of IEG evaluations on FCV issues, reflecting their growing importance in Bank Group engagements. The evaluation built on the rich evaluative evidence and insights generated in previous IEG evaluations and responded to the learning needs and knowledge gaps of key stakeholders about Bank Group engagement in FCV.

Evaluation Framework and Questions

IEG developed a conceptual framework for this evaluation that linked challenges to Bank Group engagement in FCV with elements of the FCV strategy and implied outcomes (figure A.3).

Figure A.2. Categorization of Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure A.2. Categorization of Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations

Image

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank.

Note: The list is based on (harmonized) World Bank Group list of fragile and conflict-affected situations, annual classification by the Bank Group on country lending, and status as a country affected by fragility, conflict, and violence.

Figure A.3. Evaluation Framework

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure A.3. Evaluation Framework

Image

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IFC = International Finance Corporation; LIC = low-income country; MIC = middle-income country; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; RRA = Risk and Resilience Assessment.

The evaluation assessed the extent to which key elements of the FCV strategy have enabled enhanced engagement in countries affected by FCV. IEG sought to answer the following two evaluation questions, which are derived from the conceptual framework developed for this evaluation:

1. How relevant has the 2020–25 FCV strategy been in addressing the Bank Group’s operational challenges in FCS? Specifically, has it helped the Bank Group to

   a. Deploy strategies and programs that are tailored to the drivers of FCV?

   b. Adapt its policies, processes, resources, incentives, and staffing for FCS?

   c. Form effective partnerships targeted to FCS, consistent with the Bank Group’s mandate?

2. To what extent have the changes introduced by the 2020–25 FCV strategy had demonstrable effects on Bank Group operational engagements in FCS? Specifically, have they led to

   a. Anticipated increases in the volume and shifts in the composition and risk profile of the World Bank portfolio?

   b. Improvements in project efficacy or the ability to deliver on project objectives?

Consequently, the scope of the evaluation focused on the Bank Group’s operational framework and its immediate effects. The evaluation focused on the third column of the conceptual framework (figure A.3) and examined all four Ps (policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships) of the operational framework while distilling its findings across the range of the FCV strategy pillars (column 4), except for the pillar on mitigating spillovers.

Evaluation Methods

IEG used a mixed methods approach to answer the evaluation questions. To assess the extent to which key elements of the FCV strategy have enabled enhanced engagement in countries affected by FCV, the team applied and triangulated several quantitative and qualitative methods adapted to the specific circumstances of evidence gathering and analysis from FCV contexts. Table A.1 provides an evaluation design describing the building blocks and the data collection and analysis methods of the evaluation.

Evaluation question 1 was operationalized along the four Ps of policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships. The FCV strategy is operationalized across the four Ps. Based on the strategy and previous evaluation insights, the IEG team identified the following criteria for assessing the impact of the strategy on the Bank Group’s operational framework as affecting (i) the consistency of Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs), programs, and projects with drivers of fragility and conflict as identified in such documents as the Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRAs) and other FCV analytics, as well as the extent to which programs are designed in a fragility-sensitive manner, such as by avoiding harm or exacerbating FCV drivers; (ii) enhanced adaptability introduced in policies, including Operational Policy 7.30, encompassing evidence of engagements in FCS; (iii) increased administrative budget resources available for design and implementation in FCV compared with non-FCV environments, as well as overall lending volumes and distribution among instruments and trends in FCV; (iv) the staff footprint and skills mix of staff working in FCV; and (v) the number, sector, and country distribution and effectiveness of third-party implementation (TPI) of World Bank projects.

Furthermore, IEG leveraged triangulated quantitative and qualitative methods. The systematic portfolio analysis and document review examined World Bank strategies and operations to first identify required adaptations to country-specific characteristics and FCV circumstances and then assess whether differentiated strategies and programming tailored to specific country contexts have been effectively employed to address core drivers of fragility. The analyses compared project data and impact before and after the introduction and implementation of the FCV strategy to determine if changes in project design and execution reflect more adaptive policies, processes, and practices. Additional analysis on staffing, human resources, and budget data helped the team evaluate whether corporate incentives, financial resources, and staffing align with the objectives of the FCV strategy and whether adequate presence in the field and enhanced staff capacity have materialized. A review of projects that employ direct or indirect TPI and semistructured interviews and focus groups with internal and external stakeholders provided insights into the perceived effectiveness of the FCV strategy in adopting key partnerships to address the main challenges. Country deep dives offered in-depth qualitative evidence on the practical application of the FCV strategy in different country contexts.

Evaluation question 2 is answered primarily through existing Bank Group data and portfolio analyses supplemented with complementary insights from deep-dive work. The team used existing institutional databases as benchmarks to gauge the volume, characteristics, and performance patterns of Bank Group FCV country-level engagements.

The evaluation used a two-level mixed methods approach to collect evidence and triangulate findings. Methods were applied at the level of the entire FCS portfolio (comprising the universe of countries classified as FCS in FY15–25) and at the country level. At the FCS portfolio level, the team analyzed portfolio data and patterns (including for commitments, disbursements, supervision, and evaluation ratings), analyzed available Bank Group and external databases (for example, for staffing, administrative budgets, conflict indicators, and financial flows), conducted and analyzed interviews and focus groups with broad sets of stakeholders, and synthesized IEG and external evaluative insights. At the country level, the evaluation team built on IEG evidence by distilling evidence on the relevance and effectiveness of the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCS, analyzing six existing or forthcoming FCS Country Program Evaluations and 13 IEG Completion and Learning Review Validations prepared at the end of each CPF period.2

The examination of existing country-level evidence was complemented with original country deep dives for six countries (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Mali, South Sudan, Togo, and the Republic of Yemen), which were selected to capture different FCV circumstances and modalities of Bank Group engagement. These deep dives—using thorough documentary review of Bank Group operations and interviews with key stakeholders—permitted deeper analysis and insights by exploring the implementation of the Bank Group’s operational framework and its effects and the factors and drivers of performance. The entire FCS portfolio and the country-level analyses complemented each other and enabled a synthesis of findings and lessons beyond individual cases while preventing broad generalizations of findings from a single country to all FCS countries, given variations in country circumstances.

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank.

Note: The Completion and Learning Review Validation was called the Completion and Learning Review Review before May 1, 2023. No change was made to the methodology. CLR = Completion and Learning Review; CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation; CPE = Country Program Evaluation; EQ = evaluation question; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IEG = Independent Evaluation Group; SIS = small island states.

A more detailed description of the methods follows.

• The team undertook a systematic portfolio analysis and document reviews of samples of lending, advisory, and investment portfolios for country deep dives. The FY15–24 FCS portfolio included 1,169 World Bank financing operations; 1,916 World Bank nonlending activities (advisory services and analytics); 262 IFC investment services projects; and 68 MIGA guarantees. The analysis of existing project data (for example, project development objectives, theme codes, project preparation times, project restructuring, and project ratings) was conducted for the entire FCV project portfolio. More specifically, descriptive statistical analysis (by calculating averages, standard deviations, and frequencies) of data on associated theme codes, project ratings, and number of restructurings helped the team identify positive and negative commonalities or outliers within the portfolio. This analysis also took into account whether operations in FCV contexts have been designed to address specific drivers and whether ratings suggest that differentiated strategies are effectively and successfully guiding the World Bank’s engagement. Furthermore, trend analysis of preparation times and restructuring frequencies before and after the implementation of the FCV strategy helped the evaluation team assess the flexibility of World Bank policies, processes, and practices. These analyses informed a categorization of the most relevant operations. Including five years of projects preceding the strategy in the portfolio facilitated pre- and poststrategy comparison of relevant indicators.
• To systematically identify FCV-sensitive projects within the FCS portfolio, the evaluation team employed an artificial intelligence–based classification methodology using the Amazon Bedrock API. Using this approach, the evaluation team analyzed comprehensive, publicly available project information—including project development objectives, components, indicators, abstracts, and metadata—to assess the extent to which operations addressed FCV drivers and dynamics.

The classification process used a structured prompt based on the evaluation’s Approach Paper and the World Bank FCV strategy documentation, characterizing FCV sensitivity through specific criteria aligned with the Bank Group’s FCV strategic framework. The prompt employed an n-shot learning approach, providing the artificial intelligence model with representative examples of projects across all classification levels (0–5) and various FCV intervention types. The 0- to 5-point scale was operationalized as follows: 0 indicated no FCV relevance; 1 or 2 represented minimal or indirect FCV considerations; 3 denoted moderate FCV integration that addresses some drivers or impacts; 4 reflected substantial FCV focus with comprehensive approaches to conflict dynamics; and 5 signified projects explicitly designed as FCV interventions that address root causes and systemic fragility issues.

The methodology underwent iterative validation against a sample of more than 80 manually classified projects to calibrate the classification threshold. This validation process revealed that the artificial intelligence classification approach was systematically conservative, producing no false positives and generating some false negatives. Based on this validation, the evaluation established a binary classification threshold whereby projects scoring between 0 and 2 were categorized as non-FCV sensitive, while those scoring between 3 and 5 were classified as FCV sensitive. This threshold was selected to ensure methodological rigor by eliminating the risk of false-positive classifications of projects that had minimal FCV sensitivity while accepting the need for additional review of ambiguous cases that could have more nuanced and complex ties to FCV issues.

Following the initial classification of the 1,169 operations in the FY15–24 FCS portfolio, 827 projects were considered inconclusive and required further assessment. A supplementary classification prompt was then applied to identify projects where REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), women’s empowerment, COVID-19 pandemic response, or national statistics or data collection constituted primary components; such projects were systematically excluded as not substantively addressing FCV drivers. This secondary screening reduced the ambiguous cases to 323 projects that then underwent manual review to determine their FCV sensitivity.

While formal precision and recall metrics were not calculated given the evaluation’s prioritization of classification accuracy over granular precision within the binary framework, the methodology’s emphasis on eliminating false positives ensured that all projects ultimately classified as FCV sensitive substantively addressed FCV considerations. The classification process concluded with systematic spot checks across the entire portfolio to ensure consistency. This classification enabled subsequent analysis of FCV-sensitive programming patterns across multiple dimensions, including temporal trends, regional distribution, and correlation with countries’ FCS status over the evaluation period.

Analysis of World Bank Group Data and Other Secondary Data

The assessment analyzed data and trends pertaining to the 42 countries classified as FCS that were covered by this evaluation, including conflict-related data, data on aid flows to FCV, staffing, operational budgets in FCV, financing, and instrument selection. The data analysis juxtaposed longitudinal data of Bank Group lending and nonlending operations and activities with country-level conflict data derived from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, and other databases to understand how the Bank Group engages in conflict-affected and nonconflict areas during different periods of conflict intensity and complexity. This analysis of Bank Group lending and nonlending operations helped the evaluation team identify whether there has been a strategic shift toward tailored programming in countries with varying levels of conflict intensity. These global database analyses helped validate findings from the country-level assessments of the evaluation. The databases used included the following data:

• Staffing and human resources data. Analysis of staffing and human resources data aimed to identify whether the Bank Group had enhanced staffing numbers and qualifications in FCS. A descriptive analysis mapped trends over time in staffing, such as changes in the distribution of staff across countries and changes in staffing and grade levels, years of experience, and other characteristics before and after the introduction of the FCV strategy. The evaluation used this analysis to assess whether staffing levels were aligned with the needs identified in the strategy and whether staffing adjustments made under the FCV strategy had been effective in addressing the main personnel-related challenges. This analysis of staffing and human resources data in FCS provided a granular understanding of augmented presence in the field and staff skills tailored specifically to the national context, as well as the World Bank’s priorities in the country.

The staffing analysis used human resources data on Bank Group staff located in FCS countries between FY19 and FY24, segmented by country, grade level, and FCS classification status. The analysis distinguished between countries that entered or exited the FCS list during the evaluation period and those that remained on the FCS list. The methodological approach involved both longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis. In the first analysis, staff counts in each country were aligned with the FCS classification status at each year, and relative changes were computed to assess the impact of country classification as FCS. A second layer of the analysis examined whether staff with prior FCS experience were more likely to be promoted to higher grades (GH+) as a proxy for career incentives. The analysis was complemented by qualitative inputs from interviews, offering a triangulated view of staffing in FCV contexts.

• Budget data analysis. Country-level administrative budget data were analyzed to study trends in project implementation budgets and whether these budgets were sufficient to meet the higher costs of designing and supervising operations in FCS. The evaluation also mapped the consequences of any discrepancies between the financing needed and provided. This component of the analysis included a comparison between similar projects where some benefited from additional trust fund resources for implementation and supervision and some did not analyze any differences in project implementation and outcomes. The budget analysis for the FCV evaluation relied on administrative budget data from FY19 through FY25 provided by the Budget, Performance Review, and Strategic Planning department, disaggregated by country, business process (for example, lending, analytical services and analytics, supervision), funding source (for example, World Bank budget, trust fund, reimbursable services), and FCS classification. The analysis also addresses the impact of major countries entering the FCS classification, including Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine. The inflation data for adjusting the spending from nominal to real terms were collected from the GDP price index provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED 2025). The decomposition analysis of FCV project commitment growth was conducted using project commitment data for FCS and isolated the countries that had recently entered the FCS classification or that had significant growth in commitments. The analysis also isolated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by identifying all COVID-19 pandemic–related projects and classifying them separately.
• TPI data analysis. TPI data were analyzed to inform the overall portfolio analysis and country deep dives to assess Bank Group engagement methods and the frequency of TPI use in FCV contexts. TPI analysis drew on a comprehensive data set of third-party contracts (for example, implementing agencies, modalities, project activities) and project components of TPI projects across FCS curated by Operations Policy and Country Services. The TPI data set covered 1,206 contracts for projects approved between FY15 and FY24, across 504 projects. As projects can have multiple TPI contracts assigned, 1,206 contracts covered 504 projects approved between FY15 and FY24, and 222 of these projects were in FCS. Additionally, this analysis also provided insight into the orientation of the projects—that is, whether they were more output oriented (using more short-term indicators, such as emergency response) or outcome oriented (long-term indicators, such as institutional development) in nature. The analysis was based on the classification of project development objectives as either outputs or outcomes using a keyword-based approach. The keywords for each category are listed in table A.2.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

• IDA Envelope analysis. To supplement the portfolio data set, the IEG team analyzed IDA FCV Envelope allocations and associated milestones collected by the FCV Group. Additional funds under different FCV Envelope allocations were analyzed against portfolio commitments and evaluated to assess the flow of funds to FCS. In addition, the IEG team analyzed FCV Envelope milestones.3 Similar to project development objective–level indicators, milestones are overarching goals that can span multiple projects in a client country’s portfolio and are set by the client country as the FCV Envelope eligibility note is prepared. Milestones reported annually by the FCV Group were distilled to reflect FCV-relevant goals set by IDA allocations. Milestone analysis was based on annual data collected by the FCV Group and supplemented by project-level documentation for closed operations, where Implementation Completion and Results Reports and Implementation Completion and Results Report Reviews were readily available.

To evaluate the Bank Group’s engagements with the private sector in FCS, IEG used a multistep methodological approach. The evaluation was based primarily on an analysis and synthesis of existing evaluative evidence, complemented with updated analysis of data and documents as follows: The team reviewed previous IEG evaluations and extracted main findings and common themes (figure A.4; for a list of evaluations, see Bibliography for the main report). The team then structured the main findings under the five rubrics identified by the evaluation’s conceptual framework (the four Ps of policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships, in addition to financing in FCS), as well as any results and impacts that were available. This approach resulted in 18 subquestions, such as whether IFC and MIGA were able to scale up their business in FCS, both in terms of financing and development of bankable projects; whether the Bank Group has adapted its business models for FCS or used conflict-sensitive approaches; and whether the Bank Group has fostered the right skills and staff to work in such contexts. In the next step, the team extracted relevant information from previous evaluations (going back to the documents reviewed in step 1); country-level evaluations (such as Country Program Evaluations and Completion and Learning Review Validations); and portfolio, staffing, and external data (such as on foreign direct investment flows). Finally, the team mined the six country case studies, including project documents, to fill in gaps and validate the formed hypotheses.

• Stakeholder interviews and focus groups. IEG conducted semistructured interviews with Bank Group staff and external key informants to validate emerging findings. Key informants included government officials, academics, civil society representatives, development partners, private sector representatives, and project beneficiaries where feasible to collect qualitative data that would enable the team to flesh out preliminary findings from the data and content analysis. These interviews and focus groups surfaced areas of strengths or weaknesses in the institutional effectiveness of the Bank Group and of aspects of the operational framework in FCV. Focus groups composed of country managers and country directors were conducted to complement stakeholder interviews and validate emerging findings. This aspect was supplemented with a comprehensive set of interviews conducted for deep-dive countries, involving relevant Country Management Unit staff, key task team leaders, and key partner and client stakeholders during the evaluation period. A stakeholder analysis was deployed to identify key experts outside of the World Bank, including development partners. A total of nine World Bank FCS country managers and four country directors for eight countries and one region were interviewed during scoping and the evaluation period.
• Country deep dives. IEG conducted in-depth deep dives for 6 FCS (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Mali, South Sudan, Togo, and the Republic of Yemen) from a list of 23 possible countries. These countries were drawn from those that had been included in the FCS list for at least three years during the FY15–24 period, excluding small island states, countries with no operations or small operational portfolios, and countries covered by recent IEG Country Program Evaluations (which were reviewed as part of the secondary analysis of evaluative documents described in the following section). Country deep-dive selection used a simple country typology of conflict-affected countries and institutionally fragile countries based on Bank Group classification. Countries were assigned a category based on their most frequent position on the FCS list since FY20. From both categories, a sample was selected that represents the full range of the FCV strategy, especially in the conflict prevention, remaining engaged, and transitioning out of fragility pillars, as well as the most common variations in country characteristics (such as country size, income level, region, and length and timing of conflict). The deep dives were based on a focused, streamlined questionnaire aligned with the evaluation questions and included a review of strategy, diagnostics, IDA FCV Envelope allocation, and project documents, as well as portfolio and secondary data analysis. This more detailed portfolio analysis included reviewing operations using a template questionnaire to assess the identification and integration of relevant drivers of fragility and sources of resilience, the incorporation of principles for adapting to FCV, and the use of operational flexibilities and their impact on project effectiveness. It also included analyzing projects’ performance with regard to their results frameworks and additional conflict indicators, mapping the impacts of projects financed through FCV Envelope allocations, assessing the effectiveness of partnerships, and evaluating the role and contribution of trust fund–supported projects in FCV to country-level program effectiveness. Case studies included additional semistructured interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups of actors selected through a stakeholder analysis (for example, key Bank Group staff and United Nations and humanitarian agency partners), as well as beneficiaries (mainly limited to government clients), to corroborate and deepen the information gathered through the document analysis. Across 6 deep-dive countries, 116 total interviews were conducted. Interviewees included 75 World Bank staff, 5 government representatives, 7 civil society and academia members, and 29 staff from partner organizations (United Nations agencies, the German Agency for International Cooperation, the African Development Bank, and others). The deep dives were desk based due to timing considerations. The deep-dive methodology aligned with other evaluation components (such as the portfolio review, document reviews, and interviews, in particular) and leveraged them to provide triangulation with those methods and add detail and nuance to findings. Deep-dive country strategy documents including Systematic Country Diagnostics (SCDs), CPFs, and RRAs were analyzed and compared based on the following prompts and questions:
  • List internal and external drivers of conflict and factors of resilience in RRA and categorize (drivers: political, access, economic, social, regional, security, climate, demographics, other; resilience: economic, civil society, social cohesion, informal institutions, reconciliation, international or regional support, other). Compare these with the SCD and CPF drivers of conflict and factors of resilience.
  • List RRA recommendations and categorize them (strategy level, project level, dialogue, learning, other). Compare these with the SCD and CPF drivers of conflict and factors of resilience.
  • Did the RRA present evidence for specific drivers of conflict and resilience selection?
  • Review the RRA sources:
    • Were local and regional stakeholders consulted during RRA preparation?
    • Did the RRA go through a formal quality assurance process?
    • Did the Country Management Unit participate in the RRA preparation?
    • Are the RRA team composition and skill set in line with country needs?
    • Is the RRA aligned with Bank Group country engagement guidelines and SCD and CPF documents?

Figure A.4. Private Sector in FCS Evaluation Approach

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure A.4. Private Sector in FCS Evaluation Approach

Image

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: The four Ps are policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships. AI = artificial intelligence; CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation; CPE = Country Program Evaluation; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations.

• Does the RRA include scenario analysis and preparation for future shocks?
• Is the RRA FCV sensitive when focusing on country needs?
• Does the RRA include country- or sector-specific recommendations?
• What is the actionability of the RRA recommendations?
• How do the recommendations align on key FCV issues?

• Systematic document reviews of strategy, country, and project documents. This aspect included document reviews of Bank Group strategic and policy documents, fragility diagnostics, country strategies, FCV Envelope allocations, and country-level programs using systematic template questionnaires for the countries covered by deep dives. These reviews distilled patterns of consistency and coherence between diagnostic and strategy and program documents and enabled the team to gauge changes in the Bank Group’s approach to FCV over time. IEG examined fragility diagnostics and CPFs to assess the identification and integration of relevant drivers of fragility and sources of resilience and the extent to which these drivers were reflected in tailored strategies and programming. Additionally, the review involved analyzing strategies’ and FCV allocations’ results frameworks and the extent to which these identified and measured FCV-specific indicators. It also included an analysis of Bank Group strategy documents to identify motivating factors for engagement and disengagement decisions. Finally, the evaluation team examined strategy and operational documents related to private sector development in FCV and specific instruments to evaluate the relevance of Bank Group approaches and instruments for private sector support.
• Secondary analysis of FCS Completion and Learning Reviews and their Completion and Learning Review Validations, Country Program Evaluations, and existing IEG evaluative evidence from thematic FCV evaluations. IEG distilled evidence from existing country-level evaluative and validation documents by applying a systematic template. This analysis enabled the team to leverage existing evaluations to mitigate the modest number of new deep dives prepared. The analysis focused on distilling findings regarding the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCV. The evaluation included a synthesis of findings from existing IEG evaluations covering FCV topics to use as background and baseline information. Relevant IEG evaluations included World Bank Group Assistance to Low-Income Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (2014); World Bank Group Engagement in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (2016); Recent World Bank Experience with RRAs and Operational Programming in FCV Countries (2018); World Bank Engagement in Situations of Conflict: An Evaluation of FY10–20 Experience (2021); The International Finance Corporation’s and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency’s Support for Private Investment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations, Fiscal Years 2010–21 (2022); Enhancing the Effectiveness of the World Bank’s Global Footprint (2022); and Addressing Gender Inequalities in Countries Affected by Fragility, Conflict, and Violence: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support (2023).
• Review of external literature. The evaluation team conducted a structured review of documents analyzing the FCV approaches of other international financial institutions, development partners, and multilateral development system organizations. This review also captured the lessons and experience of development agencies in partnering with the Bank Group. The external literature review was based on the following prompts and questions:
  • What is the name of the institution?
  • Does the institution have a mandate or mission statement or strategy on FCV and/or peace building?
  • Which are the strategic or corporate objectives of the institution’s approach to FCV?
  • Which types of FCV issues does the institution seek to address (for example, the four pillars in the case of the World Bank)?
  • What is the geographic scope of coverage (for example, list of countries, country typologies, similarity to the Bank Group’s FCS list, cross-cutting or mainstreamed coverage of FCV)?
  • Which corporate targets has the institution set for FCV (for example, volume, quality of portfolio, FCV outcome indicators)?
  • Describe the type and size of the FCV portfolio, if applicable. Note any trends over time (for example, growth, distribution).

Evaluation Limitations

The most prominent limitation of this evaluation was the lack of observable impact that could be attributed to the strategy itself, given its relatively short implementation period. As the FCV strategy was introduced only in 2020, it is early for impacts to have emerged, making it challenging to comprehensively assess the long-term impact of the strategy and its components. To mitigate this limitation, the evaluation team looked at the pre- and post-FCV strategy periods. This review allowed the team to capture trends that, although formalized by the strategy, started before 2020, and it facilitated pre- and postcomparisons for measures introduced by the strategy. Even with period analysis, however, isolating the specific impacts of the FCV strategy’s operational measures remained a challenge, and some impacts have not yet materialized.

The evaluation faced various methodological challenges in attributing observed changes directly to the FCV strategy because of the complexity and volatility of country-level FCS engagements. The complex and dynamic nature of FCS circumstances—generally characterized by simultaneous overlapping interventions and external shocks (for example, COVID-19, debt crises, climate change)—made it challenging to establish clear causal links between the Bank Group’s interventions and the observed impact. This complexity limited the evaluation team’s ability to attribute changes directly to the FCV strategy, ultimately affecting the generalizability of country findings to other FCS. To mitigate this challenge, the team used a mixed methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods such as stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and surveys to provide a more complete assessment. The scope and the depth of these methods were constrained by access to stakeholders, particularly since timing considerations limited the evaluation team’s ability to conduct fieldwork or engage with project beneficiaries.

Data availability and quality presented a significant challenge. High-quality data are generally less available and more challenging to generate for FCV environments. The evaluation also required access to robust historical information on country-level decision-making, lending, and nonlending activities. Although lending data were generally available, the documentation for nonlending activities was often incomplete, and these activities were infrequently evaluated, hampering a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness and impact. The team sought to mitigate this gap with complementary sources of evidence, including secondary data, literature, and perceptions of key experts. The evaluation also relied on secondary data sources such as Completion and Learning Reviews, Completion and Learning Review Validations, and Country Program Evaluations. The completeness and quality of these documents vary, which affected the consistency and quality of the findings. Similarly, the evaluation’s systematic portfolio analysis also relied on the availability and quality of data across various Bank Group operations, which led to variability in the depth and granularity of the analysis.

Security concerns in FCS and time limitations constrained access to relevant stakeholders and data collection in the field. No field missions were conducted for this evaluation, which made it challenging to reach key informants such as government officials, development partners, and project beneficiaries and limited the opportunity for ground truthing, which especially affected the country deep dives. In some cases, teams relied more heavily on secondary data sources or remote data collection methods.

There are limitations to the generalizability of the country deep-dive findings. The evaluation selected a sample of six FCS for deep dives. Although these deep dives were intended to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the Bank Group’s engagement in different FCS typologies, the diversity of FCS meant that some findings from the selected country deep dives were not easily generalizable to other contexts. The evaluation took care to offer caveats for findings appropriately and clearly connected findings to the relevant country typologies.

The size of the evaluated FCS portfolio under the FCV strategy implementation remains small. Because the FCV strategy was introduced only in 2020, evaluative evidence for projects implemented in FCV contexts is relatively low. More than 80 percent of the evaluative evidence comes from projects approved and designed before 2020. To supplement this evidence, the IEG team also explored evaluative evidence from projects evaluated during the FY15–25 period. Similarly, MIGA’s few evaluated FCS projects performed well, but the limited sample constrained the team’s ability to form broader conclusions.

Reference

FRED (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). 2025. “Gross Domestic Product: Chain-Type Price Index (GDPCTPI).” FRED. Accessed August 16, 2025. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPCTPI.