Back to cover

Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2022

Chapter 4 | Development Outcome and Other Ratings at the Country Program Level

Highlights

The share of country programs rated moderately satisfactory or higher on development outcome and good or higher on World Bank Group performance has risen since fiscal year (FY)14 and exceeded 70 percent since FY17, with the caveat that the ratings since FY19 are drawn from a small number of Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Reviews.

The two Africa Regions (Eastern and Southern Africa and Western and Central Africa) were rated substantially lower than the other five Regions on development outcome at the country level. With regard to the World Bank Group performance rating, Eastern and Southern Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean ranked the lowest.

With regard to the World Bank Group performance rating, lending group (International Development Association and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) is the most significant discriminator: for International Bank for Reconstruction and Development countries, 68 percent were rated good or higher, compared with 56 percent of International Development Association countries. This suggests that a stronger performance by the Bank Group is called for in International Development Association countries.

International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) contributions were mainly in business environment and access to finance, which accounted for about half of the Country Partnership Framework objectives with IFC and MIGA contributions. More than 70 percent of Country Partnership Framework objectives in which both IFC and MIGA contributed had ratings of mostly achieved or achieved.

Greater attention to collaboration between the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA seems necessary, even though collaboration appears strong between IFC and MIGA. The success of the Bank Group’s Mobilizing Finance for Development agenda (formerly Maximizing Finance for Development) through its Cascade approach, as well as that of IFC 3.0 (creating markets) and MIGA’s strategy, hinges on greater and more effective collaboration with the World Bank. Monitoring such collaboration in country programs both in terms of coverage and depth is currently lacking in Completion and Learning Reviews and Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Reviews but needs to be a priority.

Ratings Trends and Patterns

There has been an upward trend in Bank Group country program ratings in both development outcome and World Bank Group performance since FY14 (figure 4.1). The share of development outcome ratings of moderately satisfactory or higher and World Bank Group performance ratings of good or higher has exceeded 70 percent since FY17. Among CLR Reviews covered in FY19, FY20, and FY21, development outcome was rated moderately satisfactory or higher for all countries, with the caveat that these ratings are drawn from a small number of CLR Reviews. Regarding the World Bank Group performance rating, the improvement is more gradual and remains below the development outcome rating. Seventeen of the 21 CLR Reviews that contained ratings and were covered in FY19, FY20, and FY21 rated World Bank Group performance good or higher—though the caveat about the small number of CLR Reviews holds here too.1

Figure 4.1. Country Program Ratings, Fiscal Years 2011–21

Image

Figure 4.1. Country Program Ratings, Fiscal Years 2011–21

Source: Independent Evaluation Group data.

Note: The data are reported with the smoothing approach adopted since World Bank (2020a), with the year referring to every year in the period reviewed by the CLR Reviews. Six Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States countries were reviewed together. CLR = Completion and Learning Review; MS+ = moderately satisfactory or higher.

Country program ratings vary significantly among Regions (figure 4.2). For development outcome, South Asia, Europe and Central Asia, and Middle East and North Africa received high ratings at 89, 83, and 82 percent rated moderately satisfactory or higher, respectively, and Eastern and Southern Africa and Western and Central Africa had the lowest, with 49 percent rated moderately satisfactory or higher in both Regions. For World Bank Group performance, Europe and Central Asia outperformed other Regions, while Eastern and Southern Africa had the lowest rating.

The development outcome rating is strongly correlated with income level, lending group, FCS status, and Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) score (figure 4.3). IEG reviewed all countries’ latest CLR Review ratings and found that development outcome was rated moderately satisfactory or higher in all high-income countries, and for low-income countries, only 52 percent of ratings were in this outcome bracket. By disaggregating countries into quartiles based on their CPIA scores, IEG also found that development outcome rating rises in step with the CPIA score. Seventy-nine percent of countries placing in the top quartile by CPIA score had CLR Review development outcome ratings of moderately satisfactory or higher; for countries in the bottom quartile, the corresponding figure was 50 percent. It is noteworthy that among FCS, 59 percent had development outcome ratings of moderately satisfactory or higher, compared with 66 percent of non-FCS. The gap in development outcome performance is wider when International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) countries are compared with IDA countries.

With respect to World Bank Group performance, lending group (IDA and IBRD) is the most significant discriminator: for IBRD countries, 68 percent rated good or higher, compared with 56 percent for IDA countries. This suggests that a stronger performance by the Bank Group is called for in IDA countries. The World Bank Group performance rating assesses the design and implementation quality of the country program, focusing on issues within the Bank Group’s control, such as the selection of CPF objectives, portfolio management, results framework, risk identification and mitigation, attention to safeguards, fiduciary diligence, ownership and flexibility, internal cooperation, and coordination with other development partners (World Bank Group 2021a). Given that factors beyond the Bank Group’s control could affect the development outcome rating, differences between the development outcome rating and World Bank Group performance rating are not surprising (figure 4.4).

Figure 4.2. Country Program Ratings by Region, Fiscal Years 2011–21

Image

Figure 4.2. Country Program Ratings by Region, Fiscal Years 2011–21

Source: Independent Evaluation Group data.

Note: The data are reported with the smooth approach adopted since World Bank (2020a), with the year referring to every year in the period reviewed by IEG’s Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Review. Six Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States countries were reviewed together.

Figure 4.3. Moderately Satisfactory or Higher Development Outcome Ratings in the Country’s Latest Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Review

Image

Figure 4.3. Moderately Satisfactory or Higher Development Outcome Ratings in the Country’s Latest Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Review

Sources: Independent Evaluation Group data; World Bank Enterprise Data Catalog; World Bank Operations Policy and Country Services; World Bank Classification of Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations.

Note: Income level, lending group, Country Policy and Institutional Assessment ratings, and fragile and conflict-affected situations status are assigned based on the ending fiscal year of the latest Country Partnership Framework period that the Independent Evaluation Group reviewed. Six countries in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States were reviewed together. FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IDA = International Development Association.

On development outcome ratings, the proportion of countries trending downward is smaller than the proportion trending upward, with the opposite found in World Bank Group performance ratings, based on a review of the latest two CLR Review ratings of countries with more than one CLR Review (figure 4.5).

Figure 4.4. Development Outcomes and Bank Group Performance Ratings (number of Completion and Learning Review [CLR] Reviews)

Image

Figure 4.4. Development Outcomes and Bank Group Performance Ratings (number of Completion and Learning Review [CLR] Reviews)

Source: Independent Evaluation Group data.

Note: Six countries in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States were reviewed together. MS+ = moderately satisfactory or higher; MU−= moderately unsatisfactory or lower; WBG = World Bank Group.

Figure 4.5. Shift in Development Outcome and World Bank Group Performance Ratings in Countries’ Latest Two Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Reviews

Image

Figure 4.5. Shift in Development Outcome and World Bank Group Performance Ratings in Countries’ Latest Two Completion and Learning Review (CLR) Reviews

Source: Independent Evaluation Group data.

Note: Six Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States countries were reviewed together.

Analysis of World Bank Group Support and Country Partnership Framework Objectives

The 2018 country engagement guidance states that “Bank Group support is aimed squarely at helping clients achieve CPF objectives, which in turn contribute to HLOs [high-level outcomes]” (World Bank Group 2018, 4). As such, the success of Bank Group support—both lending and ASA—during a CPF period depends critically on the achievement of each of the CPF objectives. This is reflected in the Bank Group’s CLR and IEG’s CLR Review ratings, with the development outcome rating directly linked to the extent to which the CPF objectives have been achieved (World Bank Group 2018, para. 78). This section explores the relationship among the timing, type, and performance of Bank Group interventions and the achievement of CPF objectives.

When individual CPF objectives were considered over the 10-year period (FY13–22), nearly half were rated partially achieved or not achieved (based on 113 CLR Reviews for which this information was available).

The analysis in the following section draws from 55 CLR Reviews between 2016 and 2022,2 which contain 593 CPF objectives. Each objective is assessed as achieved, mostly achieved, partially achieved, not achieved, not rated, or not verified. Although the last three ratings have the same influence on a CPF’s overall development outcome rating, not achieved is considered separately in this analysis because it indicates that the Bank Group support failed to deliver the expected outcomes, while not rated and not verified are often a result of poor results monitoring, and thus IEG is not able to determine the achievement of an objective. Excluding 12 objectives for which the CLR Reviews do not clearly identify the supporting Bank Group operations, the findings in the following section are thus based on Bank Group support for 581 CPF objectives. The observations presented point to areas for further exploration, not conclusions or lessons on what the Bank Group should do.

Legacy Projects versus New Operations

Half of the CPF objectives were supported by a mix of legacy and new operations. In the 55 countries, about 14 percent of the CPF objectives were supported exclusively by operations already active at the start of the CPF period, and more than one-third of the objectives were underpinned entirely by new projects approved during the CPF period. For objectives that were supported by both old and new interventions, new projects dominated in nearly 80 percent of cases. DPFs figured more prominently in the Bank Group’s portfolio for the objectives that were supported entirely and mostly by new projects.

Countries that had a large presence of mature projects in the portfolio but also included new operations that could better respond to new realities had a good record on achievement of CPF objectives (see appendix F, figure F.1). About 60 percent of the objectives fully supported by pre-CPF-approved Bank Group projects and 72 percent of the objectives primarily supported by pre-CPF-approved Bank Group projects were either fully achieved or mostly achieved, compared with 52 and 47 percent, respectively, of the objectives mostly and entirely supported by new projects launched during the CPF period. The shorter period of implementation for the new projects may have led to poorer delivery of the expected outcomes among the latter group, resulting in a higher share of partially achieved objectives. However, the CPF, as a forward-looking document, risks losing relevance if it does not anticipate upcoming change. Appendix G provides guidance on how to avoid this risk.

One Bank Group Approach

The World Bank supported 98 percent of all CPF objectives in the 55 countries, but IFC was involved in only 20 percent of them; four out of five objectives were supported only by World Bank operations (see appendix F, table F.3), even though most CPFs are joint strategies for the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA (appendix H). The CLR Reviews frequently note that the CPF results framework fails to reflect IFC interventions adequately. In some cases, IFC provided an add-on complement to World Bank operations (for example, South Africa in 2021, The Gambia in 2018, and Bulgaria in 2016). In general, IFC and MIGA do not play a big role in public sector reforms, which explains why they were absent from Bank Group support for some CPF objectives. But their noninvolvement in support of objectives concerning private sector–led growth can be considered a missed opportunity—which is even more striking, given that these objectives constitute a key pillar or focus area for most CPFs.

Even for objectives supporting the business environment and private and financial sector development, where IFC has significant expertise and well-developed tools, it still played a smaller role than the World Bank (table 4.1). The CLR Reviews note IFC activities in a wide range of areas. IFC is particularly active in supporting business environment, private and financial sector development, energy, agrifood, and health care services. Compared with the objectives in other areas, Bank Group support for these objectives involved IFC more often, yet IFC could contribute much more. For instance, CLR Reviews offer many examples of successful World Bank–IFC-MIGA collaboration in all aspects of energy generation, transmission, and distribution, including renewable energy development (for example, Nigeria in 2021, China in 2020, Kazakhstan in 2020, Myanmar in 2020, and Senegal in 2020). However, the World Bank and IFC worked together (collaboratively or in parallel) in only 26 percent of the energy objectives, and the World Bank worked alone in two-thirds of the cases. The same is true for agrifood objectives, where the World Bank dominated the Bank Group’s sector support.

Overall, CPF objectives that were supported by World Bank and IFC operations together registered a slightly better record of achievement than those supported by World Bank operations alone. Combined World Bank and IFC support translated into more mostly achieved and partially achieved CPF objectives and fewer not achieved objectives but not more fully achieved objectives (see appendix F, figure F.2). In the five areas where IFC has significant experience and was most active, the objectives that were supported by both World Bank and IFC operations did not perform any better than those supported by the World Bank alone (see appendix F, figure F.3). In fact, contrary to expectations, the World Bank and IFC seem to have derived more benefits from working together in areas other than those in which they collaborated more extensively: only 19 percent of the objectives were achieved and 32 percent mostly achieved in the five areas of key IFC activities. The comparable figures in other areas were 34 percent achieved and 38 percent mostly achieved. The objectives supported by IFC alone seem to have performed very well, although the small number of observations (11) makes it difficult to generalize.

Table 4.1. Country Partnership Framework Objectives in Key Areas of International Finance Corporation Activities

Operations

Agriculture and Food

Business Environment, Private Sector

Development, Financial Sector Development

Energy

Health Care Services

(no.)

Share (%)

(no.)

Share (%)

(no.)

Share (%)

(no.)

Share

(%)

Total

46

96

47

34

World Bank + IFC operations

15

33

45

47

12

26

2

6

World Bank operations only

31

67

45

47

31

66

32

94

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: IFC = International Finance Corporation. The same projects often support the business environment, private sector, and financial sector development at the same time through different components.

The “Knowledge Bank”

Half of the CPF objectives were supported by a combination of Bank Group financing (World Bank lending and IFC investments) and knowledge (ASA and nonlending technical assistance) operations (see appendix F, table F.5). Financing underpinned more than 90 percent of all CPF objectives, but only 9 percent of the objectives relied solely on the Bank Group’s analytical and technical support. Indeed, unlike Bank Group financing, which typically leads to measurable changes in some ways (for example, roads built or banks capitalized), Bank Group analytical work is often intended to inform rather than to deliver development outcomes directly. Advisory services and technical assistance, however, have a more discernible impact on the achievement of CPF objectives: they are less diffuse in their effect because they target specific CPF development outcomes.

Combined Bank Group financing and knowledge support translated into more mostly achieved CPF objectives and fewer not achieved objectives, though not more fully achieved objectives (see appendix F, figure F.4). In the 55 countries, about 23 percent of the objectives were fully achieved, regardless of the knowledge content of the Bank Group interventions (that is, whether the support was financing only, knowledge only, or a mix of both). However, when Bank Group financing was combined with knowledge support, they had a higher incidence of delivering most of the expected outcomes (33 percent) than did financing or knowledge alone (27 and 22 percent, respectively) and a lower tendency to fail completely (8 percent versus 17 and 14 percent, respectively). Furthermore, combined support seemed to support better results monitoring, reducing the share of objectives whose achievement could not be verified.

Outcome of World Bank Operations

A positive relationship exists between the achievement of CPF objectives and the outcome rating of the supporting operations, which is particularly notable at the higher end. Consistent project ratings are available only for World Bank lending operations. For the 522 objectives supported either partially or entirely by World Bank lending, the data confirm the expected: a CPF objective is more likely to be achieved when there are more successful projects in the country program. This is especially true for fully achieved objectives (see appendix F, figure F.5).

DPFs were associated with better performance than IPFs in outcome achievement at the project level, but their contribution to CPF objective achievement was mixed. IPFs formed the backbone of the World Bank’s lending programs. Nevertheless, of the 581 CPF objectives from the 55 countries, 125 were supported by at least one DPF.3 This included 21 objectives that were supported exclusively by DPFs, although for most objectives, DPFs made up less than half of the Bank Group portfolio. A heavy presence of policy operations was associated with more successful operations (project outcomes rated moderately satisfactory or higher) in the Bank Group’s support program but not better achievement of CPF objectives (see appendix F, figure F.6). The 21 objectives supported entirely by DPFs are notable: they performed exceedingly well, with 90 percent of the DPFs successfully implemented and 60 percent of the objectives were fully achieved.

IFC and MIGA Contributions to Country Partnership Framework Objectives and Performance

IFC and MIGA contributions were mainly in business environment and access to finance, which accounted for about half of the CPF objectives with IFC and MIGA contribution. Energy accounted for another 17 percent, and other infrastructure (almost equal shares for telecommunications, transport, and water and wastewater) accounted for another 10 percent. Agriculture, agribusiness, and rural development accounted for 11 percent, and the social sectors (divided almost equally between health and education) accounted for about 10 percent. Climate change accounted for most of the remaining objectives (table 4.2).

IFC used both investments and advisory services to contribute to the objectives. Table 4.3 shows that IFC contributed to almost all the objectives with IFC and MIGA contribution. In about one-third of the objectives, IFC combined investments and advisory services. Advisory services may be provided to investment clients directly (for example, capacity building for lending to woman-owned small and medium enterprises). Accompanying advisory services support focuses on improving broader business environment constraints or financial infrastructure gaps (for example, microfinance institution investment accompanied by support to credit bureaus).

MIGA projects accounted for about 11 percent of the objectives with IFC and MIGA contributions. In all but one of these objectives, MIGA’s contribution was accompanied by IFC investment or advisory services or both. This is partly due to MIGA’s leveraging of IFC’s more extensive global footprint. MIGA’s business development agreement with IFC since 2009 provides both marketing support (acting as a broker on behalf of MIGA) and sharing of due diligence (for example, environment and social assessments and other information on common clients). MIGA provides value added by reducing noncommercial risks in joint projects with IFC, an example of jointness that has become increasingly important because of the Bank Group’s Mobilizing Finance for Development agenda (formerly Maximizing Finance for Development) and the Cascade approach.

Table 4.2. International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Contributions by Country Partnership Framework Objective

CPF Objective Classification

CPF Objectives (no.)

Share of IFC Contribution by CPF Objective Classification (%)

Share of MIGA Contribution by CPF Objective Classification (%)

Share of Combined IFC and MIGA Contribution by CPF Objective Classification (%)

Business

environment

49

26

10

26

Access to finance

44

24

10

24

Energy

32

17

45

17

Agriculture, agribusiness, and rural development

21

11

10

11

Infrastructure

18

9

20

10

Health

9

5

5

5

Education

7

4

0

4

Other

6

4

0

3

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

IFC support to access to finance objectives was mainly through investments in financial institutions. IFC investments accounted for 62 percent of the support, either as sole contributor (32 percent) or combined with IFC advisory services (30 percent). Investments in financial institutions accounted for a significant part of the IFC portfolio, in some cases supported by capacity-building programs, especially in microfinance. A significant part of the advisory services is in strengthening the financial infrastructure, including credit information and collateral systems.

Table 4.3. International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Support to Country Partnership Framework Objectives by Instrument

Objectives with Combined IFC and MIGA Contributions

Objectives Supported by IFC Investment Only

Objectives Supported by IFC Advisory Services Only

Objectives Supported by Combined IFC Investments and Advisory Services

Objectives Supported by MIGA Guarantee Projects

Objectives Supported by Combined IFC Investments and Advisory Services and MIGA Guarantee Projects

Number

186

59

71

55

20

19

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

IFC investments and MIGA guarantee projects were the main instruments supporting energy-related objectives. IFC investments accounted for almost 70 percent of the energy objectives with IFC and MIGA contributions, of which 25 percent were a combination of investments and advisory services. MIGA accounted for 28 percent of the energy objectives, all of which were also supported by IFC investments or advisory services or both. Many of the MIGA projects supported IFC investments (for example, Kribi Gas Power Project in Cameroon) or were enabled by IFC advisory services (for example, Myingyan Independent Power Producer Project in Myanmar). IFC investments and MIGA projects were also primary contributors to other Infrastructure-sector objectives in the CPF. IFC investments accounted for more than 70 percent of the infrastructure objectives with IFC and MIGA contributions, which had 28 percent combined investments and advisory services support from IFC. MIGA contributed to more than 20 percent of the infrastructure objectives. IFC supported the Kenya-Uganda Railway, the EASSy cable regional project in East Africa/Kenya, and the Dakar Diamniadio Toll Road Project in Senegal. IFC also provided public-private partnership advisory support in several countries.

IFC advisory services were the main instrument used to contribute to the CPF objective of improving the country’s business environment. IFC supported public sector institutions in developing and implementing investment climate policies and reforms that focused on reducing the cost of doing business. About 85 percent of the business environment objectives with IFC and MIGA contribution included IFC advisory services either as the sole contributor (60 percent) or combined with IFC investments (25 percent). But of all the CPF objectives rated in the CLR Reviews, more than 55 percent were assessed as not achieved or partially achieved. Of the total rated objectives in low-income and FCS, about 60 percent were assessed as not achieved or partially achieved.

About 75 percent of CPF objectives with combined IFC and MIGA contributions were assessed as mostly achieved or achieved.4 In most CLR Reviews, the results of IFC and MIGA interventions were incorporated in indicators that contribute to the rating of CPF objectives, such as the number of small and medium enterprises with credits secured by moveable property, increased energy generation, and reduction of regulatory procedures. Other objectives with IFC or MIGA contribution, such as in improving the business environment and in health and education, did not perform as well, with more than 63 and 50 percent rated as partially achieved or not achieved, respectively (table 4.4).

The IFC investments and advisory services projects identified as contributing to the CPF objectives were typically only a portion of IFC’s portfolio in the country. IFC’s active investments and advisory services projects in the country were described in the CLR Reviews and listed in the appendixes. However, the CLR Reviews did not discuss the relevance of the IFC portfolio to the CPFs. Additionally, the CLR Reviews (and, by extension, the CLRs) did not discuss and incorporate IFC country strategies and their links to the CPFs. The CLR Reviews assessed for this RAP exercise did not mention private finance mobilization, an important pillar of IFC’s and MIGA’s strategies.

Table 4.4. Performance of Objectives with International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee

CPF Objectives Classification

Rated Objectives with

Combined IFC and MIGA Contributions

Rated Objectives with Combined IFC and MIGA Contributions in LICs and FCS

Share of achieved or mostly achieved ratings (%)

Share of not achieved or partially achieved ratings (%)

Share of achieved or mostly achieved ratings (%)

Share of not achieved or partially achieved ratings (%)

Business

environment

37

63

44

56

Access to finance

61

39

63

37

Energy

72

28

89

11

Agri-rural

63

38

50

50

Infrastructure

53

47

83

17

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IFC = International Finance Corporation; LIC = low-income country; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

Although collaboration is strong between IFC and MIGA, there is scope for improving the quality of the Bank Group Internal Collaboration section of the CLR Reviews. The Bank Group’s Mobilizing Finance for Development agenda, through its Cascade approach, is missing in the CLR Reviews assessed for this report. The success of IFC’s 3.0 (creating markets) and MIGA’s strategies hinge on greater and more effective collaboration with the World Bank. Improving the section on collaboration and assessing the coherence of the mix of various Bank Group instruments in the CLR Reviews can provide helpful feedback and lessons that can enhance intra–Bank Group collaboration in achieving HLOs.

  1. The total number of CLR Reviews covering fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 16, 6, and 2 respectively, including CLR Reviews without ratings.
  2. See appendix F for more information about sample construction.
  3. Program-for-Results projects supported 23 objectives (less than 0.1 percent).
  4. The assessment refers to the Bank Group’s achievement of each of CPF objectives and not a rating of IFC and MIGA contribution in the CPF.