The findings that emerge from this report are relevant to the Bank Group’s evolution toward a Better Bank. The Better Bank initiatives implement changes in how the Bank Group operates, building on processes initiated by the Board of Governors at the annual meetings in 2022 as part of the Bank Group’s evolution. The findings presented in RAP 2024 are relevant to the cross-cutting issue of FCS,1 the operational efficiency and the effectiveness initiative regarding preparation time and processing time, the new World Bank Group Scorecard, and the joint country representation initiative.

Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations

World Bank operations in FCS could improve performance through simplified design and risk identification and mitigation of institutional capacity challenges. The share of operations in FCS, which historically have lower outcome ratings, has risen. The proportion of closed operations with full or partial exposure to FCS increased from 31 percent in FY20 to 37 percent in FY23. These operations have a more acute array of challenges. Appropriate design and risk management of operations in FCS correlate with improved outcome ratings. Mid-Term Review of the World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (2020–2025) noted that crisis-related operations could perform well when they are focused, simple, and realistic in nature (World Bank 2023d). Evidence from RAP 2024 reinforces this finding because operations in FCS whose objectives include a focus on access have significantly higher ratings. Yet a focus on access needs to be balanced with mitigating institutional risks and preserving institutional capacity. The share of operations reporting one or more institutional challenges and the average number of challenges per project are both higher in FCS than the overall portfolio.2 An increase in reported challenges in these areas increases the likelihood of lower ratings.

In challenging contexts where selecting high-quality clients may not be feasible, IFC can influence client quality by providing support for capacity building. In Africa and IDA and blend contexts in FCS, it is particularly important for IFC to select clients with proven business models (that is, those that are tested locally or that can adapt to local conditions when replicated from another country) to reduce business risk. Moreover, in these contexts, there may not be a robust pipeline of bankable projects and experienced clients with the capacity to successfully implement the projects. Nevertheless, IFC should be aware of client limitations and can build a client’s capacity by providing nonfinancial additionalities (for example, technical assistance through advisory services during supervision).

Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness: Preparation and Processing Time

World Bank operations with long preparation time (above the 90th percentile) are associated with significant challenges at closure. The World Bank has recently made efforts to substantially shorten preparation times as part of the evolution (World Bank 2024c). Operations with the longest preparation times (above the 90th percentile) were more often linked to challenges with institutional capacity and design. These operations also had significantly lower Bank performance, outcome, and M&E ratings. While operations tackling difficult or complex challenges may take longer than average to design, these extended preparation periods can reflect more fundamental difficulties encountered during the design stage and also serve as an early warning of potential institutional capacity challenges that operations may face during implementation. Conversely, even though the RAP 2024 analysis does not show a statistical association between shorter preparation time and project outcomes, other evaluation evidence highlights the importance of adequate preparation for successful outcomes (World Bank 2024f).

For IFC investment projects, spending sufficient time on front-end work may be particularly important in challenging contexts and projects that are especially complex. In challenging contexts (specifically, in Africa, Middle East and North Africa, FCS, and IDA and blend) and projects that are especially complex (the Infrastructure industry group), processing mostly successful or better IFC investment projects takes longer than processing mostly unsuccessful or worse projects. Delays could occur at any stage of processing between the Concept Note and first disbursement. However, cutting short key front-end work quality and preparation factors (such as market assessment; client quality; or assumptions, financial models, and project costs) may contribute to weak development outcomes. IFC advisory services, in contrast to IFC investments, cannot accurately measure preimplementation scoping time because not all advisory services projects go through the Concept Note stage (for example, some subprojects of approved programmatic umbrellas or fast-track projects that were follow-ons from previous engagements). In addition, out of the 411 standard advisory services projects evaluated and validated by IEG (FY13–23), 67 projects (16 percent) did not have a Concept Note date. Developing an approach to measure preimplementation scoping time and recording Concept Note dates in the system would allow IFC to test associations between client responsiveness and performance indicators (such as development effectiveness, IFC work quality, and IFC role and contribution).

World Bank Group Scorecard

Challenges that affect the results monitoring of operations are relevant for the Bank Group Scorecard. The Scorecard aims to be a strategic management tool that drives action for results. Across Bank Group institutions, challenges were found with M&E quality, regular reporting, and indicators.

Many operations and country programs continue to have inadequate M&E, which could represent a challenge for implementation of the Scorecard. The share of IPF and Program-for-Results operations with M&E quality rated substantial or above increased from 29 percent in FY13 to 64 percent in FY23. However, this means that more than one-third of operations have inadequate M&E practices. World Bank operations with challenges in project data and monitoring have lower performance ratings. Recent evaluations, including RAP 2021 and RAP 2023, have identified frequent challenges with indicators, data availability and baselines, and reporting and supervision (World Bank 2022c, 2023e, 2024a). Moreover, 83 percent of CLRVs reported major inadequacies in results frameworks. Evidence on issues with results frameworks is relevant to the Scorecard because management is considering ways to cascade the indicators into results frameworks across CPFs (World Bank 2024b). To improve M&E quality, consideration could be given to focusing on Global Practices that have half of their operations rated modest and negligible over multiple years. These Global Practices may also have reporting issues on some of the new indicators.

MIGA could accurately measure its overall development outcome ratings by promptly delivering self-evaluations of all of its guarantee projects. A total of 19 MIGA projects are pending self-evaluations during the FY21–23 period (45 percent of planned self-evaluations during this period). The pending self-evaluations from MIGA might or might not sustain its development outcome ratings at a stable level. This, in turn, could affect MIGA’s reporting for the new Scorecard.

IFC could improve the measurement of outcomes, particularly market outcomes, by recording more complete information about projects. IEG conducted a desk-based review of 173 IFC investment projects evaluated and validated by IEG during CY21–23. We could not verify nearly 100 outcomes. IFC introduced the AIMM system, an ex ante monitoring tool, in 2017. However, in an analysis of 21 projects with live AIMM scores (projects that were assigned ex ante AIMM scores at Board approval), IEG found that 22 percent of outcomes did not have an indicator in the tracking system (17 percent of project-level outcomes and 43 percent of market-level outcomes).3 Moreover, most market-level outcomes were never tracked (despite having indicators) or could not be tracked (because they did not have an indicator). By identifying and tracking outcome indicators, IFC would be able to verify whether most of its outcomes, particularly market outcomes, have been achieved. This could help facilitate including these outcomes in the new Scorecard, where appropriate.

Joint Country Representation

Bank Group collaboration has for many years been a work in progress. The Bank Group has sought enhanced collaboration in country programs for almost three decades. The joint country representation initiative seeks to enable integrated solutions that span both the public and private sectors, leverage Bank Group knowledge and experience, and amplify collective impact. The joint country representation initiative could be constrained because Bank Group collaboration remains infrequent across two CPF periods and outside of a limited number of sectors.

The findings of this RAP on World Bank collaboration in country programs could be relevant for joint country representation. Important conditions that reinforce Bank Group collaboration are a shared view of sector priorities and objectives that are aligned across Bank Group institutions. Developing a shared view of sector priorities entails Bank Group institutions collectively understanding actors, opportunities to grow a sector, constraints on realizing those opportunities, and what needs to be done to ameliorate constraints. In addition, for collaboration to be successful, Bank Group institutions need to align their objectives. Different measures can be employed to establish these conditions. The Bank Group can use analytics and advisory services to identify areas of alignment or clarify sector priorities. A shared strategy that is more granular and flexible than a CPF can help make collaboration more effective. Measures to support close coordination between staff from different Bank Group entities, such as supporting the development of staff networks, have been factors in successful collaboration.