Event Venue: World Bank Headquarters, I Building, Room: I 2-250

Headlines of increasing capital concentration and inequality have come to define the global policy debate as actors and institutions struggle to translate notional commitments to inclusion into concrete and tangible changes for people. Since its introduction in 2013, the World Bank has made a significant effort to incorporate the shared prosperity goal into its various products and services, across regions, global practices and World Bank Group institutions. However, the challenging global environment implies that continued attention, adaptation, and collaboration will be needed to ensure success of the new shared prosperity agenda.

Our panel of academic and technical experts discussed concrete actions that can be undertaken by the World Bank Group to guarantee the long-term attainment of this pivotal goal.  The event also highlighted findings from IEG’s recent evaluation on shared prosperity: Growth for the Bottom 40 Percent: The World Bank Group’s Support for Shared Prosperity.

Watch a re-play of the live event


Read the Blog: Addressing Global Inequality- Can We Succeed?

Continue the conversation on twitter at #SharedProsperity

Read Growth for the Bottom 40 Percent: The World Bank Group’s Support for Shared Prosperity


Caroline Heider
Director-General, IEG, and
Senior Vice President
World Bank Group


Otaviano Canuto
Executive Director and Chair, Committee on Development Effectiveness
World Bank Group

Manuela Ferro
Vice President, Operations Policy & Country Services
World Bank

The World Bank Group’s Support for Shared Prosperity: An Independent Evaluation

Željko Bogetić
Lead Economist, Country Programs and Economic Management Department
Independent Evaluation Group




Shanta Devarajan
Acting World Bank Group Chief Economist and Senior Director, Development Economics
World Bank


Carolina Sanchez
Senior Director, Poverty and Equity Global Practice
World Bank

Ted Chu
Chief Economist
International Finance Corporation

Auguste Kouamé
Director, Human Development and Economic Management Department
Independent Evaluation Group


Submitted by Lhouine.B on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 10:03


HI. I appreciate studies from IEG. As to the question for the Panel, I would like Panel shade some light on the attitude of government and society as a whole to promote middle class incomes for development, based on theory and findings. What about structures and policies ensuring this goal? Does it include cultural issues implying some new (not occidental) paradigms?

Submitted by Jason Hall on Tue, 03/13/2018 - 14:04


How has all world governments going off the Gold Standard ("TEMPORARILY" in the U.S. in 1971) increased poverty worldwide? and when will the world go back to Sound Money reversing what was said to be "TEMPORARY"?

Submitted by Lucy Mbugua on Wed, 03/14/2018 - 06:09


The bottom 40% is young women and the youth because there are no enough intervention mechanism.I am involved in advocacy and I want to suggest Women Economic Forum, the Global Chair Person as the person who can change the narrative of women from being disempowered to women fulfilling their ''full potential' 'This organisation has a conference in India,2000 women from 150 nations are attending including members of Parliament in United Kingdom, both House of Lords and House of Commons and a member of Parliament from Tanzania, Sophia.This is a great organisation to get SDG2030 women done. For the youth, I have an idea of an organisation Jenga Africa founder Kevin Mbugua.This organisations, idea was multi-faceted, crowd funding for the youth to get start capital for SME and offering training, well due to lack of support the organisation stalled in December 2015.60% of African population is made of less than 25% of population. Such an organisation is supported will help the youth get a life. Thank you I hope that these two organisation will receive a positive consideration to address the bottom40%.Simply they are very practical oriented.

Submitted by Cal Guerin on Wed, 03/14/2018 - 08:14


Hi there,
My question is: does the World Bank promote sustainable, craft and trade using regionally local wisdom and talent around the world in an effort to help people and natural environments recover and thrive? If so, could you name some examples?
Thank you

Submitted by Zahid Shabbir on Wed, 03/14/2018 - 15:11


First of all, I would like to offer my compliments on commendable work being done. My primary question to the panel is regarding the inclusion of vulnerable segments (children, woman) based analysis/ evaluation to achieve the goal of shared prosperity for the bottom 40 percent (B40). Secondly, as triangulation is the method of evaluation, I am inquisitive about your views to make use of already available evidence, for instance, to gauge the gender gaps within B40, Gender Development Index (GDI) can be used to extrapolate results for shared prosperity. Lastly, having been through the instrument used for collection of internal feedback (Q17) on inequality, I am getting the impression whether inequality (especially income related), still isn’t being considered that significantly in connection with the objective of shared prosperity at WBG? Thank you.

Submitted by Joerg Freiberg… on Thu, 03/15/2018 - 09:07


The result of this interesting evaluation is alarming: The shared prosperity goal has not been integrated into the operational activities of the WB. Is this not a problem of the goal itself? At the first glance it seems to be simple, and therefore very open for lip service. Looking deeper (as it has been done in the technical paper) the concept has a lot of limitations, especially in considering the non-income assets of the poor which are intrinsically related to the opportunities and barriers which the poor face. On the other hand, there is no clear definition of the Theory of Change. How was it possible to evaluate quantity and even quality of theory of change without any kind of definition? Substituting this conceptual gap by a simply chain between WB input and output does not represent a theory of chain. As there will be no theory of chain which fits for all, is not the process of how to develop this theory in a specific local and political context a more relevant indicator? And my final question: The quality of delivering public services which has been mentioned as one of the three tracks of shared prosperity has not been considered in the evaluation. Why not? The same is true for fiscal policy and domestic resource mobilization. One could get the impression that the evaluation carefully avoids any link to some kind of redistribution policy. But how to improve the income level of the poor without fiscal policy and specifically tax policy to raise financial resources for improving quantity and quality of public goods and therefore improving the access of the poor to public goods. Why there has been no deeper analysis of Performance Based Lending which exactly focused on these issue?

Submitted by Thomas on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 04:13


The result of this interesting evaluation is alarming: The shared prosperity goal has not been integrated into the operational activities of the WB. Is this not a problem of the goal itself? At the first glance it seems to be simple, and therefore very open for lip service.

Add new comment