Purpose

This evaluation assesses the evolution of World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) engagement to help countries address gender inequalities and the lessons learned on the results achieved between fiscal year (FY)12 and FY23. The evaluation also analyzes the factors that enabled and constrained this evolution, including the contribution of the FY16–23 gender strategy.

The evaluation’s findings will complement the findings of other Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) evaluations and will inform the implementation plan of the 2024–30 gender strategy. World Bank Group Gender Strategy Mid-Term Review: An Assessment by the Independent Evaluation Group identified strong commitment to the strategy across the World Bank Group (World Bank 2021b). However, it found that implementation actions did not consistently match this commitment and the level of ambition in the strategy. The Mid-Term Review pointed to shortcomings in implementing the country-driven approach—a finding confirmed by Addressing Gender Inequalities in Countries Affected by Fragility, Conflict, and Violence: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support (World Bank 2023a). The latter evaluation showed that, for the Bank Group support to produce deep, long-lasting, and scalable results, it is essential to switch from a project-by-project approach to a strategic country engagement. This evaluation provides additional insights into these issues and contributes to ongoing discussions about realistic goal and target setting in relation to the implementation plan of the Bank Group’s 2024–30 gender strategy (World Bank Group 2024) at the corporate, country, and project levels, including operationalization of the Bank Group Corporate Scorecard indicators.1

Methodology

Scope

This evaluation defines its scope along five dimensions: reference period, institutional coverage, subject focus, regional and country coverage, and level of engagement and operationalization. The reference period spans from FY12 to FY23. FY12 is the year the World Development Report (WDR) on gender equality and development was published. The evaluation covers the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA), and IFC and excludes the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, which only recently adopted a gender strategy implementation plan and is part of the new gender strategy for 2024–30. The evaluation focuses on gender inequalities2 under the four strategic objectives of the FY16–23 gender strategy: improving human endowments, removing constraints for more and better jobs, removing barriers to women’s ownership and control of assets, and enhancing the voice and agency of women and engaging men and boys. This evaluation spans all Practice Groups, Global Practices (GPs), industry groups, and business lines within the World Bank and IFC that are covered by the FY16–23 gender strategy. The findings of the evaluation are generalizable to all countries and Regions—selected case studies span all seven Bank Group Regions and complement portfolio reviews, corporate interviews, a survey of World Bank and IFC staff, and a review of World Bank and IFC literature, which allows for successful triangulation (see appendix A). Finally, the evaluation assesses the World Bank and IFC performance on gender equality by establishing an analytic strategy at multiple, interconnected levels: corporate, GP and industry group, Region, country, and project or activity levels.

Three gender topics fall outside the evaluation’s scope. The topics are (i) gender equality in human resource practices and corporate culture within the Bank Group, (ii) gender equality in procurement, and (iii) gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment action plan. The GBV and sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment action plan will be part of IEG’s upcoming Environmental and Social Framework evaluation. Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) are partially covered in the evaluation as part of the intersectionality analysis.

Theory of Action

The evaluation derives its theory of action from the narrative of the FY16–23 gender strategy. The Bank Group allocates inputs (figure 1.1) to ensure that activities are undertaken at the corporate, Region, country, industry or GP, and project levels. These inputs consist of strategic directions and commitments on gender; technical skills of World Bank and IFC staff strengthened through training and guidance tools; monitoring and evaluation systems; and a gender architecture that refers to the human resources devoted to gender (in particular, gender leads, advisers, and focal points in addition to the Gender Group), guidance and advice to facilitate cross-sectoral and cross-institutional collaborations, and the management and reporting lines that govern the functioning of these resources. These inputs aim to strengthen the Bank Group’s capacity to provide effective support to countries in the form of better diagnosis of gender gaps; identification and piloting of gender-smart solutions; coordinated use of multiple instruments, such as strategic plans, knowledge, lending, and technical assistance; and collaboration between the World Bank and IFC and with country stakeholders. The Bank Group’s support aims to increase the country uptake of approaches to address gender inequalities and guide them to better prioritize relevant gender gaps and define adequate solutions; pilot, test, and implement gender-smart solutions; and institutionalize those solutions through the scale-up and creation of conditions for sustainability. Eventually, the country uptake of these approaches should result in increased gender equality in countries in the four dimensions identified by the gender strategy. Changes in language notwithstanding, this theory of action aligns with the pre-strategy approach to gender. Its fundamental elements—country-driven approach, centrality of knowledge, and emphasis on identifying, adopting, and enhancing effective solutions—are adopted by the 2024–30 gender strategy.3

Figure 1.1. World Bank Theory of Action to Achieve Gender Equality

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 1.1. World Bank Theory of Action to Achieve Gender Equality

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank Group 2015.

The evaluation assesses how well this theory of action has been implemented. To formulate its recommendations, the evaluation assesses how the Bank Group has internalized and implemented the theory of action and to what extent the inputs mobilized by the institution (corporate factors) have facilitated or hindered the engagement for gender equality and the achievement of results, also accounting for external influencing factors, such as political will and commitment, demand and capacity of country actors, and socioeconomic and cultural factors and trends (figure 1.1).

Conceptual Framework

The evaluation’s conceptual framework derives from the WDR 2012 on gender equality and development. According to the WDR 2012, gender outcomes result from the interplay of formal and informal institutions that shape choices and preferences within households, the level of agency of women and girls, and the distribution of economic opportunities and human endowments (World Bank 2012). Each element—institutions, agency, human endowments, and economic opportunities—influences and is influenced by the others. The FY16–23 gender strategy adopted the WDR 2012 conceptual framework and organized the gender equality objectives under its four strategic objectives. The gender strategy included the change in informal institutions (gender norms) under the fourth objective of enhancing the voice and agency of women and engaging men and boys.

This evaluation’s conceptual framework (figure 1.2) adapts the WDR 2012 framework and draws inspiration from the conceptual model of women’s and girls’ empowerment that was developed by the KIT Institute in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2017 (Van Eerdewijk et al. 2017) and that was adopted by three World Bank publications (World Bank 2023e, 2023f, 2023g).

Figure 1.2. Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 1.2. Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; Van Eerdewijk et al. 2017; World Bank 2012.

Gender equality can be achieved only by transforming gender power relations. This goal requires women and girls exercising agency and taking action, a more equal distribution of resources, and a shift in the institutional structures or institutions that shape gender roles and power relations (figure 1.2). These changes are closely interrelated. Tangible and intangible resources4 are unequally distributed between men and women because of unequal gender power relations. Gender equality requires equal access to resources and equal control of resources. Women’s and girls’ agency encompasses four dimensions: (i) women’s and girls’ self-empowerment (power within), (ii) women’s and girls’ choice and decision-making, (iii) women’s and girls’ leadership, and (iv) women’s and girls’ collective agency. Women, girls, men, and boys pursue their lives in the context of institutional structures—that is, the social arrangements of formal and informal rules and practices that govern behaviors and expressions of agency, as well as the distribution and control of resources. Institutional structures frame social relations—that is, power relations between different social groups, including gender power relations, resulting in gender inequalities. Institutions operate in five different arenas: household and family, markets, community, nonstate institutions, and state and local authorities. The focus on women and girls is based on evidence that gender inequalities mostly affect women and girls worldwide. However, the conceptual framework also highlights the engagement of men and boys as an essential part of institutional change and stresses the need to empower them to foster the affirmation of culturally relevant forms of “positive masculinity.”5 It further recognizes that men and boys and nonbinary people are also affected by gender inequalities. Appendix B provides additional explanations on the conceptual framework.

Evaluation Questions

The main evaluation question is, What are the main results achieved by the World Bank and IFC in supporting countries to address gender inequalities, and what is the contribution of the FY16–23 gender strategy? This overarching question comprises two questions that are broken down and further explored in subquestions (box 1.1). The questions focus on the “what” (results) and the “how” (processes and modalities of engagement) that characterize the support the World Bank and IFC provide to countries with the aim of closing gender gaps or addressing gender inequalities. The “why” (those factors that affect the achievement of results and elements of the theory of action) is treated as a cross-cutting question.

Research Methods

The evaluation adopted a multilevel and multimethod strategy to assess the evaluation questions. The analysis took place at the corporate, Region, industry, country, and project and activity levels (see appendix A). The multimethod approach featured a nested design with nine interconnected methodological components, blending qualitative and quantitative methods. This approach enabled addressing complexity, enhanced efficiency, and supported triangulation. Some evaluation activities occurred simultaneously for triangulation purposes, whereas others were sequential, building on emerging results to strengthen external validity.

The evaluation focused on different elements at different levels. At the corporate level, the analysis examined the strategic vision and directions of the institution and the gender architecture (that is, the human resources devoted to gender, such as gender leads, advisers, focal points, and the Gender Group; the guidance and advice aimed at facilitating cross-sectoral and cross-institutional collaborations; and the management and reporting lines that govern the functioning of these resources) through corporate interviews, literature review of the Bank Group corporate documents, and a staff survey. At the global level, the evaluation assessed the Bank Group support to countries through a review of the recent country strategies, literature review of the Bank Group knowledge products,6 and multiple portfolio reviews of the Bank Group (see appendix A).

At the country level, the analysis assessed the Bank Group support to individual countries through eight country case studies—Bangladesh, Benin, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Tanzania, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam (see appendix D). The case study countries were purposively selected in consultation with the World Bank and IFC, with the intention of capturing good practices of country engagement and operations (“positive deviants”). Each case study includes extensive desk reviews of Bank Group projects, analytic work, and strategic documents; desk reviews of the Bank Group and external literature on gender inequalities and effective solutions; desk reviews of each country’s relevant strategies and policies; and desk reviews of documents on gender agendas and gender-related activities by other relevant actors. Each case study also includes semistructured interviews and focus groups with key informants of the World Bank and IFC, implementing partners, private sector clients, and other relevant stakeholders (governmental institutions, development partners, international nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], civil society associations, women’s rights organizations, religious institutions, and academics) on the country engagement for gender equality, its results, and its evolution. At the project and activity levels, the evaluation carried out in-depth examinations of specific gender-relevant projects and activities with potentially transformative elements. This analysis also included field visits in the case study countries and interviews and focus group discussions with target groups and relevant stakeholders at the local and community levels.

Limitations of the Evaluation

The evaluation’s main limitation stems from the paucity of information on gender equality results. Although this is primarily a limitation of the World Bank and IFC information systems—a critical finding of the evaluation—it represents at the same time a huge challenge for the analysis. Specific examples of data limitations are paucity of indicators, lack of reporting of indicators, and zero baselines (with the inability to distinguish between true zeros or lack of data at the start of the project). Other limitations are lack of typologies and classifications for analyzing expected and achieved results on reducing gender inequalities. The evaluation had to combine several methods to gather evidence on results, including heavy primary data collection, extensive portfolio reviews, and use of text analysis. Systematic triangulation across multiple sources was required for generalizability, and this increased the complexity of the evaluation.

Another limitation for the evaluation involves attribution of results. The Bank Group introduced the gender strategy in 2016, IFC advisory gender flagging started in 2016, World Bank gender tagging started in 2017,7 and IFC investment gender flagging started in 2019. At the time this evaluation commenced, only 92 gender-relevant World Bank projects approved after the strategy had a completion report (not necessarily an Implementation Completion and Results Report Review), and only 23 IFC advisory and four IFC investment gender-relevant projects had been evaluated and validated by IEG. Moreover, even at the level of engagement, it is not always possible to neatly separate the impact of the strategy from trends that were already occurring and the contributions of the World Bank and IFC and those of other development partners. Appendix C details the evolution of the Bank Group’s gender agenda.

A third limitation derives from key informants’ reluctance to provide information and access to other key informants. For example, many IFC clients, for confidentiality reasons, could not release information on beneficiaries, which constrained triangulation of information from staff, clients, and beneficiaries. This lack of data created an asymmetry between IFC projects, for which the perspective of beneficiaries was missing, and World Bank projects, whose beneficiaries were much easier to access. In some countries, governments were also reluctant to provide information and attempted to control the information collected in the field. Appendix A details these challenges and IEG’s mitigation strategies.