Back to cover

Enhancing the Effectiveness of the World Bank’s Global Footprint

Chapter 3 | Benefits

Decentralization has realized many of its anticipated benefits, with some variation across different types of countries. These benefits include greater trust and better relationships between World Bank staff and government counterparts, greater collaboration with development partners, and timelier and more frequent operational support to counterparts.

Decentralization improves the World Bank’s support to clients, especially in low-capacity countries, by increasing staff’s understanding of country contexts and tailoring products to local development needs. Decentralization allows the World Bank to closely support complex operations and engage in innovative development approaches across countries with different capacities.

The World Bank’s presence (after periods of disengagement) in countries emerging from conflict or political crises can help restore trusting relations with the government, lend legitimacy to government counterparts, and signal the global community’s support for state institutions.

Hubs do not provide the same benefits as in-country presence but can still improve the World Bank’s responsiveness to clients compared with headquarters’ support. Hubs can also mitigate risks associated with placing World Bank staff in countries with security problems or unfavorable living conditions. Locating staff in nearby country or hub offices is a viable interim solution for fragile and conflict-affected situation countries, where security conditions do not allow locating staff in-country.

The World Bank’s preexisting field presence, strong sector knowledge, and client relationships allowed it to provide an early response and business continuity during the coronavirus pandemic.

Survey and interview data have revealed many links between decentralization and early indicators of project’s successful performance, but the results of the multivariate statistical analysis had mixed findings on the association between a greater field presence and project ratings.

This chapter examines the anticipated and unanticipated benefits of decentralization for client countries with differing capacities and fragility levels. The chapter answers evaluation question 2 and informs question 3 by exploring the gamut of benefits for different types of countries associated with the field presence of the World Bank. The chapter also contributes to question 1 by discerning the possible links between decentralization and the World Bank’s project performance, conceptualized in figure 1.1 (middle columns of the conceptual framework [blue boxes]). The chapter is divided into four parts, the first showing decentralization’s key benefits for different types of client countries, the second showing how decentralization benefits manifest in the World Bank’s project-level performance, the third showing decentralization’s key benefits for the World Bank itself, and the fourth describing decentralization’s role in the World Bank’s early response to the COVID-19 crisis. This chapter also integrates lessons from IFC’s longer history of decentralization.

Client Responsiveness

A greater World Bank staff presence in client countries is correlated with greater client satisfaction in lower-income countries, and Regional patterns are largely consistent with these results. There is a strong positive correlation between client satisfaction and World Bank staff’s in-country presence in LICs and LMICs.1, 2 The analysis shows that as the World Bank’s field presence rises, so does the client’s satisfaction with the World Bank’s (i) collaboration with civil society and the private sector, (ii) honesty and straightforwardness, (iii) respectful treatment of clients and stakeholders, and (iv) long-term engagement as a development partner (appendix E, table E.3).3 Similarly, in Africa, where most countries are in a lower-income range, the correlation between client satisfaction and World Bank staff presence is positive and, in some cases, also statistically significant. In the Europe and Central Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean Regions, which have the highest number of upper-middle and high-income countries, the general pattern is negative, with fewer statistically significant relationships.4 In interviews, however, all clients welcomed the World Bank’s presence in their countries, and a plurality of clients explicitly highlighted the importance of having decision makers, which mostly meant TTLs, in the field. The interviews also showed that clients were also satisfied with the support of World Bank staff not based in the country, often citing their global perspective.

Figure 3.1. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Their Work

Image
Horizontal bar graph showing client-facing tasks are easier in country and knowledge tasks are easier in headquarters.

Figure 3.1. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Their Work

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: Field-based staff includes staff in country and hub offices. Bars show a weighted average of the responses for each answer category. Weights were applied to the number of respondents for each answer; 2 = greatly helped, 1 = helped, 0 = neutral, −1 = hindered, −2 = greatly hindered. Average scores are shown. HQ = headquarters; TTL = task team leader.

TTLs find it easier to serve clients from the field than from headquarters. The TTL survey clearly showed that locating TTLs in the field, in both FCS and non-FCS countries, makes it significantly easier for the TTLs to carry out client-facing activities, whereas locating TTLs at headquarters makes it easier to carry out knowledge-related activities (figure 3.1). Field-based TTLs also spend more time on client-facing activities than headquarters-based TTLs.5 These activities include (i) interacting with development partners, (ii) building a relationship of trust with clients, (iii) acquiring an in-depth understanding of the local context, and (iv) developing business opportunities. IFC, for its part, saw similar benefits from putting senior staff in the field. According to the background paper on IFC’s decentralization experience (appendix D), these benefits included a better understanding among staff of local markets and the local political economy, projects better tailored to client needs, increased informal interactions between staff and clients leading to greater trust, and more business opportunities generated from staff-client dialogues. A World Bank TTL based in the Central African Republic summarized it nicely: “Being in the field, I do five things very well: I am in constant contact with the client; I address capacity issues of the client promptly; I maintain sustained dialogue with all the partners, including other development partners; the travel costs are low because I do not undertake any international travel; and I have the advantage of proximity, which helps with troubleshooting.” The following paragraphs will examine decentralization’s benefits to these client-facing activities.

Client trust toward the World Bank was a key advantage of locating staff in the field across countries with different capacities because it helped this staff engage in policy dialogues with clients and support government reforms. Nearly three times as many field-based TTLs as headquarters-based TTLs said their location helped build trusting relationships with clients (figure 3.2). Interviews confirmed that physical proximity helped staff and managers engage clients on policy issues and support challenging reforms. As a TTL in Nigeria put it, “Like any human relationships, dialogue is based on trust, familiarity, and likeability. Proximity makes it easier to talk to and work with [clients]. They see you all the time, and they are familiar with you. Depending on how you behave, they trust you. That relationship helps when we have to talk about difficult stuff.” In Nepal, the evaluation found that informal discussions and networks accessed in the field facilitated challenging federalist reforms. In the Nepal case study, staff with only headquarters experience felt they were able to maintain close client relationships; however, staff with both headquarters and field experience said they noticed a big improvement in their ability to build relations with clients only after being based in the field. IFC’s review of its decentralization experience also found that decentralization led to stronger relationships with local and Regional partners (IFC 2009). Academic literature supports these empirical findings, showing that geographic proximity and frequent interactions among actors facilitate trust building. These studies claim that face-to-face interactions are superior to other forms of information exchange, such as virtual communication, for building trust (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Nilsson and Mattes 2015). However, this is because frequent and repeated interchanges facilitate trust building, not because trust is inherently local or dependent on co-location. The literature also contends that once actors have built deep trust, that trust will endure, reducing the importance of continued geographic proximity (Nilsson and Mattes 2015).

Figure 3.2. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Trust Building

Image
Two stacked horizontal bar graphs showing that field-based task team leaders find it easier to build trust with clients.

Figure 3.2. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Trust Building

Source: Independent Evaluation Group analysis of TTL survey.

Note: HQ = headquarters; TTL = task team leader.

In FCS countries, field presence after periods of World Bank disengagement was critical for restoring trusting relations with government counterparts. Building trusting relationships is challenging in FCS countries because of those countries’ deep-seated conflicts and cultural and ethnic cleavages. In Burundi, for example, deep-seated cultural and ethnic cleavages drove the country’s fragility, issues that can only be bridged by building trust and nudging the conflicting parties toward political settlements. In Somalia, there was consensus among interlocutors that field presence was the most effective way to build trust with clients after a long period of disengagement, and the World Bank “needed to restore confidence after the 1980s when the country was hit hard by structural adjustment loans.” Following the World Bank’s reengagement in Myanmar in 2012, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and bilateral donors supported the government’s reforms to modernize its public financial management system and develop internal capacities. The evaluation found that the World Bank’s investment since 2013 in frequent interactions and relationship building with government counterparts was pivotal for the successful completion of the first phase of public financial management reforms.

Decentralization helps the World Bank understand country contexts and tailor products to country needs, making analytical products more influential. International development studies demonstrate the importance of understanding the country context when designing development projects, but international financial institutions, like the World Bank, are often seen as lacking this knowledge and failing to adequately consult governing authorities to acquire it (Andrews 2013). TTLs in the field perceived their location as helpful in understanding local contexts significantly more than TTLs at headquarters (figure 3.1). In addition, about a third of LRS who responded to the TTL survey felt that Washington, DC–based staff working on their country do not understand their country’s local context and political economy and are not realistic about what can be achieved in the country (figure 3.3). A recent study (Knack et al. 2020) found that the World Bank’s economic and sector work is more effective at influencing government priorities and the design and implementation of government policies than, for example, the World Bank’s development policy lending. The reason for economic and sector work’s effectiveness is that these diagnostics are undertaken jointly with government officials and involve their contextual knowledge in diagnosing policy problems and formulating policy recommendations (Masaki and Parks 2020). This is confirmed by IFC’s early decentralization experience (IFC 2009). IFC found that decentralization led to a deeper understanding of the local context with greater appreciation for the local market’s risks. Interviews with IFC staff showed that having staff in the field, especially investment officers, enabled IFC to get to know their clients, improve the quality and depth of analyses, and operate within complex local environments (appendix D).

Figure 3.3. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of Staff Abilities to Understand Local Contexts and Set Realistic Expectations

Image
Six stacked horizontal bar graphs showing that local contexts are perceived to be better understood by field-based leaders.

Figure 3.3. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of Staff Abilities to Understand Local Contexts and Set Realistic Expectations

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: DC = Washington, DC; TTL = task team leader.

Staff’s better understanding of local contexts, especially in low-capacity and fragile countries, improves the World Bank’s support. In high-capacity countries, clients often seek global knowledge from similarly advanced parts of the world to improve their development experience. In low-capacity and fragile countries, clients often prioritize acquiring contextual knowledge and adapting traditional solutions to local needs. A program leader in Myanmar said, “In fragile environments, issues are not clear; the client sometimes doesn’t even know what they want. So to sit with them and understand how their system is unique and how they can improve it is very critical. Just reading their newspapers is important. In a low-capacity and fragile country like Myanmar, where every important institutional reform starts from scratch, it is important to have the ability to understand what to prioritize. That means, knowing the local context by frequently talking with the client.” In Liberia, the evaluation found that the World Bank program focused on adapting traditional project approaches to local conditions, rather than providing international best practices.

Decentralization allows the World Bank to more actively engage with in-country development partners. Interviewed World Bank staff agreed that collaborating with different partners is significantly easier from the field because, as a headquarters-based TTL put it, “If you go on mission for one week, it is nearly impossible to meet [development] partners.” Decentralization also facilitates donor coordination because locally based partners find the World Bank’s field-based staff more accessible and informed on the country’s issues. In the TTL survey, headquarters-based TTLs acknowledged that their location hindered their interactions with development partners, whereas most field-based TTLs perceived their location as helpful or greatly helpful (figure 3.1). Field-based TTLs spend more time convening donors and building partnerships than headquarters TTLs. In addition, most field-based LRS TTLs felt that headquarters-based TTLs did not have good contacts and networks with development partners, government officials, nongovernmental organizations, and others in their country (figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of Whether Internationally Recruited Staff Have Good Contacts and Networks

Image
Three stacked horizontal bar graphs showing that field-based task team leaders have better contacts and networks than headquarters-based leaders.

Figure 3.4. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of Whether Internationally Recruited Staff Have Good Contacts and Networks

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: DC = Washington, DC; TTL = task team leader.

Effective country-level convening is crucial for more coordinated and strategic development support in FCS countries. FCS countries often rely heavily on additional financing from donors. A practice manager who previously worked on West Bank and Gaza mentioned that “on partnerships, it makes a difference to be in the country. I was able to generate a lot of funding in West Bank and Gaza because of my local presence that provided more opportunity to engage with others.” The Afghanistan case study attributed the World Bank’s country footprint for its outstanding success in establishing and managing the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. The partnerships with donors and the government enabled the fund to become a very successful multidonor trust fund (MDTF), reaching $1 billion annually with 34 donors. For the World Bank to be successful in FCS countries, it must effectively mobilize and manage MDTFs (appendix C). This requires the World Bank to carefully nurture partnerships, coordinate strategic priorities with donors, and properly report results to the donor consortium, which in turn require a strong in-country presence and local decision-making authority. MDTF resources enabled the World Bank to scale up its programs in Afghanistan and Liberia far beyond IDA allocations. In Somalia, the Multi-Partner Fund enabled the World Bank to deploy resources and build a credible relationship with the government long before Somalia became eligible for IDA financing (appendix C). The country director for another FCS country reinforced the importance of staff presence for better convening: “This is a complex country with huge donor engagement. When this country faces a particular situation, if you are not present, the government will receive fragmented advice from all the others there. The fact is that when we are present, we play a large role in coordination. To do that, we must have IRS staff with international experience to inform that donor coordination.”

In countries emerging from conflict or political crisis, the World Bank’s presence can lend legitimacy to lawfully elected governments and signal the global community’s support for state institutions. In some FCS countries with extended periods of political violence or undemocratic leadership, the World Bank restored its field presence after those countries transitioned toward more peaceful and inclusive governance. In these countries, the World Bank’s field presence not only provided much needed development support but also boosted the legitimacy of the new governments. In Madagascar, when the new constitutional government took over and the World Bank reengaged in 2013, the fledgling government used the World Bank’s participation in the new administration’s initiatives to help legitimize the administration itself. According to the case study, the World Bank’s partnership with the government was what added legitimacy to the administration, but the World Bank’s physical presence was also a helpful, maybe necessary, component of that partnership. In the Central African Republic, the World Bank had no staff in the field during the nation’s upheaval from 2013 to 2015. The World Bank reopened in 2015 with only the country manager and a handful of local consultants based in the country. The primary goal of the World Bank’s engagement was to extend “life support” to the failing government’s institutions and help start the arduous process of rebuilding the government’s social contract with its citizens. Therefore, when the World Bank reestablished a presence in the Central African Republic, it implicitly conveyed its trust in the government. In Burundi, the government protested when the World Bank closed its country office during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming there were no COVID-19 cases in the country and that the World Bank was trying to scare the population. However, according to the case study, the more likely reason for the government’s protest was that presidential elections were approaching quickly, and the government felt the World Bank’s office closure would undermine the election’s legitimacy or force the government to postpone it.

Hubs, or satellite offices, can provide a degree of client responsiveness while mitigating challenges that discourage World Bank staff from taking field assignments. Hubs may not substitute for country presence, but they can mitigate some of the challenges associated with placing World Bank staff in countries with higher security risks or locations with unfavorable living conditions. The TTL survey revealed that staff find it significantly easier to be client responsive from a hub office than from headquarters (figures 3.5 and 3.6). In interviews, World Bank staff agreed that the hub office’s physical closeness to clients makes it easier and cheaper to travel to and support nearby countries. The common time zone a hub office shares with the countries it supports makes the hub conducive to easier, more frequent, and closer interaction with clients compared with headquarters. Well-staffed hubs can also bring an array of senior technical specialists closer to clients, especially when these specialists’ workloads do not justify them being permanently located in a country office. According to a TTL in Somalia, the Nairobi hub allowed the country team to benefit from the entire spectrum of development professionals who would have not been readily available had the team been located in Mogadishu. Several World Bank interviewees felt that bringing together a critical mass of people in a hub office also helps share knowledge, establish networks, and create a common identity. The TTL survey, however, indicates that global knowledge flow and collaboration are nearly as difficult from hub locations as from country offices (figure 3.5). A comprehensive assessment of the World Bank satellite offices may be needed to assess hub services and to calibrate the benefits and drawbacks.

Figure 3.5. Extent to Which Headquarters, Hub, and Country-Based Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Their Work

Image
Horizontal bar graph showing that global knowledge flow and collaboration are difficult from hubs and country offices.

Figure 3.5. Extent to Which Headquarters, Hub, and Country-Based Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered Their Work

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: Bars show a weighted average of the responses for each answer category. Weights were applied to the number of respondents for each answer; 2 = greatly helped, 1 = helped, 0 = neutral, –1 = hindered, –2 = greatly hindered. Average scores are shown. HQ = headquarters; TTL = task team leader.

Figure 3.6. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of the Support from Internationally Recruited Staff in Different Locations

Image

Figure 3.6. Field-Based Locally Recruited Task Team Leaders’ Perceptions of the Support from Internationally Recruited Staff in Different Locations

Image

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: The percentage of those in each category who agree or somewhat agree with the statements is shown. DC = Washington, DC; LRS = locally recruited staff; TTL = task team leader.

Project-Level Performance

Decentralization does not necessarily affect the proactivity of TTLs who are equally proactive in dealing with problem projects, regardless of their location. The evaluation found that the proactivity action indicator for lending operations that had been flagged as problematic during FY13–19 was similar for operations with the TTL in the country and operations with the TTL outside the country (in either headquarters or other locations).6 Overall, 73.6 percent of problematic projects with TTLs not in the recipient country have taken actions, compared with 73.5 percent of projects with TTLs in the country (table 3.1). However, a slightly higher share of lending operations with TTLs in the recipient countries were upgraded, whereas a slightly higher share of operations with a remote TTL were closed.

Table 3.1. Proactivity Index and Actions Taken by Task Team Leader (%)

TTL Location

Closed

Restructured

Suspended

Upgraded

Partially Canceled

Overall Action Indicators

TTL not in country (1,320 projects)

17.5

28.4

1.5

41.4

7.9

73.6

Source: Independent Evaluation Group analysis of World Bank project Proactivity Index.

Note: TTL = task team leader.

The proximity of staff to clients enables more frequent and timely operational support and monitoring, which is especially important in low-capacity and fragile countries. In interviews, more than a third of World Bank staff identified closer, better, and more frequent client support and follow-up as key benefits of decentralization. Interviews showed—and the TTL survey reinforced—that physical proximity to clients helps staff (i) quickly address project bottlenecks, (ii) meet with government officials immediately or on short notice, and (iii) respond to clients instantly with no need to wait for Washington, DC, office hours or supervision missions. Interviewees often mentioned the importance of proximity not only to project TTLs but also those who enable day-to-day implementation of projects, such as the procurement and financial management specialists or safeguards experts. Staff found this support particularly important in LIC and FCS countries, where project implementation has more capacity challenges. For example, the TTLs in the field, and especially in FCS locations, seem to depend more on procurement and safeguards colleagues for timely client support than do those at headquarters (figure 3.7). The evaluation also found that being in the field makes monitoring of what is happening in the field much easier. A program leader in an FCS country pointed out that “if we have people much closer to the client, it would increase our ability to supervise projects effectively and even reduce the risk of corruption.” The Rwanda Country Program Evaluation showed that in some sectors, such as agriculture and social protection, the policy dialogue with donors and the government lost intensity when the TTL was no longer based in the country office. In the urban sector, some stakeholders attributed implementation delays to the lack of a field presence of the right staff (World Bank 2018a).

Timely support to clients, however, also depends on other factors that may be equally important, such as resource availability or manageable workloads. Despite the general belief among all staff that physical proximity contributes to a timelier response to clients, headquarters staff did not feel their distant location was a major factor in causing delays. Although 74 percent of field-based TTLs in FCS countries and 61 percent of field-based TTLs in non-FCS countries considered “physical proximity to clients” an important factor for ensuring a “timely response to client requests,” only 18 percent of headquarters-based TTLs said the same (figure 3.7). All TTLs, regardless of their location, also felt their access to management, the availability of resources, and their own workloads were determining factors for timeliness.

Figure 3.7. Most Important Factors for Allowing a Timely Staff Response to Clients

Image
Horizontal bar graph showing that multiple factors influence timely response for staff based in headquarters and the field.

Figure 3.7. Most Important Factors for Allowing a Timely Staff Response to Clients

Image
Horizontal bar graph showing that multiple factors influence timely response for staff based in headquarters and the field.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situation; HQ = headquarters.

Decentralization allows the World Bank to provide close support for complex operations and encourages innovative approaches across countries with different capacities. Client interviews showed that high-capacity clients—in countries such as Argentina, Ukraine, and Vietnam—also value the World Bank’s day-to-day operational support but particularly for complex projects. In Ukraine, the evaluation found strong consensus among interviewees that the country office’s management and specialist support for the ongoing health project Serving People, Improving Health was crucial because of the project’s dispersed geography and multiple project implementation units. According to the Ukraine case study, short missions from overseas did not provide staff enough time to interact with provincial or local project implementation units, especially since these units had little experience with implementing externally funded projects and required more instruction. Only in-country staff could provide the frequency of visits necessary to guide provincial units. Similarly, the Vietnam Trung Son Hydropower Project was a high-risk, high-return operation with important environmental and social implications. IEG rated the project highly satisfactory for supervision and project outcomes. The project required 140 missions over eight years, which would have been impossible from headquarters. Several clients also referred to the relationship between innovation and the World Bank’s local presence. A client from Tunisia said, “For innovative investments such as ‘value chain development,’ where there is considerable experimentation, we need specialists in the field who will work with us daily to test new ideas (proof of concept) and implement them before taking them to scale.” Another client in the Europe and Central Asia Region said, “When the [World] Bank’s staff are in the field, they see potential for new opportunities and go for it. It is very difficult to do it when they come for short missions.”

World Bank staff and clients, especially those in fragile and low-capacity countries, agree that the World Bank’s local presence is essential for building the client’s capacity. For instance, a client from an FCS country said, “Capacity building is when someone goes out in the trenches and gets their hands dirty.” A client from the East Asia and Pacific Region said, “Capacity building must happen in-country. But too often … the World Bank shows up, builds a road, and says ‘now maintain’ it.” The Liberia case study concluded that insufficient IRS staff in the country office did not affect the quality of the World Bank’s lending and advisory products but limited the World Bank’s capacity-building effectiveness and ability to understand Liberia’s local context. Similarly, another World Bank client in the East Asia and Pacific Region said, “The lack of in-country decision makers [from the World Bank] contributed to delayed procurement processes and less in-country project design and capacity-building.” The Rwanda Country Program Evaluation reinforced this, showing that basing senior TTLs in the field can help build policy-making capacity and ensure smooth project implementation, particularly in countries with limited institutional capacity (World Bank 2018a). The Afghanistan Interim Strategy Note and Country Partnership Framework (CPF) discussed the need for in-country staff to help the government overcome its capacity constraints and manage the World Bank’s large lending program. The Central African Republic case study showed that in low-capacity countries, simple project implementation support can serve as additional capacity building. IFC’s decentralization experience reinforced these findings (appendix D).

The multivariate statistical analysis could not corroborate clear and systematic links between staff location and project ratings, despite survey and interview data revealing links between field presence and early indicators of improved project performance, as conceptualized in figure 1.1. The multivariate statistical study analyzing the possible association between the field presence of different staff types (TTL LRS and IRS, non-TTL LRS and IRS) and the World Bank’s project performance and project outcome ratings found unclear and, in some cases, counterintuitive results. For instance, the study found a relatively strong but negative association between an IRS TTL’s field presence and project ratings in non-FCS countries, as measured by IEG’s ratings of the World Bank’s quality at entry, quality of supervision, and project outcome ratings. By contrast, the study found that an IRS TTL’s field presence has a positive but relatively weak association with project ratings in FCS countries. Meanwhile, the field presence of LRS TTLs appears to be more beneficial in non-FCS locations than in FCS locations. The analysis also found a few statistically significant relationships among different staff types and portfolio size or countries of different income levels. For example, LRS operational staff’s field presence is positively associated with project ratings in large country programs. However, the evidence is not consistent, and the overall patterns remain unclear (appendix B).

The World Bank’s field presence does not necessarily shorten project preparation times. IFC’s experience shows that decentralization initially improved project cycle times and the speed of project delivery to clients. IFC’s average processing time per project (from early review to commitment) declined from 294 days in FY02 to 203 days in FY08 (IFC 2009). However, IFC subsequently found that decentralization had little impact on project processing times (IFC 2014). Past self-evaluations of the World Bank’s decentralization also noted—albeit more qualitatively—that a TTL’s field presence improved project preparation and implementation (World Bank 2008). The evaluation’s analysis of project preparation times during FY13–19 found that the average preparation time for lending projects with a TTL in the project country was 531 days but only 454 days for projects without a TTL in the country. In FCS countries, the pattern is the same, though the difference in preparation times is smaller. However, it should be noted that project preparation time may depend on many different factors. World Bank staff and managers commonly observed that often the preparation of projects that are complex or require more sensitive client discussions are moved to the field.

Additional Benefits for the World Bank

Decentralization stimulates GPs to foster closer ties with CMUs, shape country engagement more directly, and generate new development opportunities. The World Bank staff felt their physical presence or absence in a country influenced the development of new dialogues, operations, technical assistance, or advisory services. Such perception was strong across interviews, case studies, and the TTL survey results. According to a TTL working on Nepal, the GP’s “frequent interaction with the country management team allowed [the GP] to form meaningful connections and have a more direct impact on the World Bank’s country strategy and priorities in terms of how best to combat poverty.” A practice manager for Africa said, “You need to have someone in the field to develop the business and obviously [country directors] are going to give preference to areas where they feel the GP has done its homework and has the capacity to provide follow-up support.” The TTL survey showed that only 31 percent of headquarters-based TTLs believe their location helps them develop new business opportunities, but 84 percent of field-based TTLs believe the same (figure 3.8). A TTL based in Romania said that the government asked the World Bank to carry out several reimbursable advisory services “because I was near the client and could help them articulate their demands.” Similarly, the Nigeria case study reported, “The presence of seasoned IRS staff who could carry forward deep and complex policy dialogue has created windows for new engagement.” IFC’s early experience confirmed the positive impact decentralization can have on business development. During IFC’s decentralization from 2002 to 2008, it generated more investments and advisory services than previously (IFC 2009), even though a later evaluation found that the impact of IFC’s decentralization on commitment amount per investment officer was less than expected (World Bank 2017b). Interviews with IFC staff for this evaluation confirmed that decentralization and stronger relationships with clients helped IFC generate business (appendix D).

Figure 3.8. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered New Business Development

Image
Two stacked horizontal bar graphs showing that it is easier to develop new business opportunities in the field.

Figure 3.8. Extent to Which Task Team Leaders Felt Their Duty Station Helped or Hindered New Business Development

Source: Independent Evaluation Group TTL survey.

Note: HQ = headquarters; TTL = task team leader.

Fieldwork makes the World Bank’s international staff experience as development practitioners more versatile and can help prepare them for managerial jobs. Several interviewees said that field experience contributed to their personal and professional growth and is an important benefit for the World Bank as a global institution. For instance, a practice manager for Africa said, “Decentralization makes staff more aware of the realities of living and working in the country. I’m glad to be in touch with reality. It is extremely enriching.” A TTL in Armenia said, “If the [World] Bank wants to remain competitive, staff need to have field experience. It is important for gaining credibility as an international expert.” Some respondents shared their experience on how East Asia and Pacific’s previous practice manager model helped develop a cohort of skilled managers (see box 3.1). According to one of them, decentralized managers were farther away from the management team in the country offices; they worked directly with clients and had a single-sector background but needed to cover multiple sectors. These conditions helped them sharpen their leadership and managerial skills. Nearly all these decentralized practice managers later became directors. Staff also noted the value of making field experience a prerequisite for promotion, especially to higher-level managerial positions. According to them, the managers who have been in the field, especially in difficult locations, are more sensitive to operational needs and have more realistic expectations for country staff and therefore can make more informed decisions on staffing and programming. This was confirmed by a few long-time clients in the Latin America and the Caribbean and East Asia and Pacific Regions, who thought that their former World Bank counterparts in the Region, now elevated to higher managerial positions, understand the clients’ constrains in the field better.

Box 3.1. East Asia and Pacific Region’s Pre-2014 Practice Management Model

Before the World Bank’s 2014 decentralization, the Sustainable Development Practice Group and the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Networks in the East Asia and Pacific Region piloted their own Practice Group management model. Field-based practice managers served in Practice Groups that covered one or a limited number of neighboring countries instead of covering the Global Practice for many countries, as is currently the norm. The Practice Group also had a practice manager in headquarters who managed headquarters staff and helped the field-based practice managers with administrative processes. Several interviewees felt that this model allowed the field-based practice managers to provide more attention to individual clients and country-based staff and can seamlessly incorporate the duties of program leaders.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group interviews.

COVID-19 Response

The World Bank’s preexisting field presence, strong sector knowledge, and client relationships facilitated its early COVID-19 response. The underlying factors of success were in-country staff’s prior relationships with clients built through years of collaboration and deep sectoral knowledge. In Argentina, where one of the World Bank’s first COVID-19 response operations was approved, there were three health sector specialists in the field when the pandemic began. The specialists, who had been building their relationships with clients for more than 20 years, were able to quickly confirm the client’s needs and prepare the substance of the operation in two meetings. In Afghanistan, three new operations related to COVID-19 were prepared by experienced teams that were already managing large ongoing operations in the country. This enabled the teams to partner with their existing government clients to respond rapidly to the pandemic. Being in the same time zone and occasionally having safe physical meetings also helped accelerate the World Bank’s COVID-19 response. IFC’s experience was similar to the World Bank’s, with IFC’s quick initial COVID-19 response made possible by strong preexisting in-country relationships with clients.

The World Bank’s in-country staff helped ensure business continuity during the COVID-19 crisis. Some country offices remained open even though the headquarters was closed, so local staff continued to carry out missions. As a TTL for the Solomon Islands put it, “People in-country did a good job in keeping the office going and supporting staff in other countries. With travel restrictions, we rely on the local staff. Local presence is playing a key role in maintaining operations until the World Bank is back to operating normally and travel from [headquarters] resumes.” Also, according to a country manager in the Europe and Central Asia Region, the World Bank’s decision to not remove its country presence during this health crisis signaled to the government the World Bank’s dedication to the country.

The COVID-19 crisis has brought country office and headquarters staff closer together, democratizing discussions, and helped clients embrace virtual communication. World Bank staff interviews showed that the World Bank has become better in communicating virtually during the COVID-19 crisis both with clients and within the organization, bringing field and headquarters staff closer. A practice manager for the Africa Region said, “In the pre–COVID-19 era, I had much less interaction with field-based managers than I did with managers in [Washington,] DC. Now, during COVID-19, I am interacting more with [R]egional staff.” A TTL based in Argentina said something similar: “Now that everybody is working virtually, I have daily contacts with the Global Practice; before I was mainly in contact with counterparts and colleagues [in the country office].” According to a TTL for Somalia, the COVID-19 response “brought people together on WebEx,” reducing a lot of the “political posturing, and democratizing the discussion.” According to another practice manager for Africa, COVID-19 leveled the playing field for discussants: “Before COVID-19, it was very much about face-to-face—when you were on the screen, you felt disconnected. Lots of decisions are taken (separately) in Washington [, DC]: knowledge, career. With COVID-19, everybody is on a screen. Everybody had to learn to treat people differently.” A similar transition to virtual communication happened in relations with clients. However, for clients, especially in fragile countries, transitioning to virtual work was not without challenges. The country manager for a small FCS country in Africa said, “The COVID-19 crisis highlighted some of the weaknesses in our engagement with African clients and their citizens mainly related to the digital economy agenda.”

The reliance on virtual communication during the COVID-19 crisis offers lessons that can mitigate some of decentralization’s inefficiencies. For example, although the COVID-19 crisis reinforced the importance of having a local presence, several interviewees felt that the new embrace of virtual communication may reduce the need for mission travel. According to a TTL for Myanmar, “Even low-capacity countries like Myanmar are getting better in virtual connections,” and the World Bank does not “always need to be in the field to be effective.” Moreover, increased virtual communication could mitigate some of decentralization’s inefficiencies. As chapter 4 will show, practice managers and their staff in the field often feel disconnected, but the extended period of virtual working might improve this. A field-based practice manager in Tunisia said, “I had to make sure that the team in [Washington,] DC, always had a ‘door to knock on’ to get the best technical advice and advice to enhance their career path. Then COVID-19 happened and, in some ways, reduced the spatial differences because everyone is now based at home.” The greater use of virtual communication also to some extent improved country office staff’s access to global knowledge. A TTL for Madagascar said, “The lack of accessible training for local staff is a shortcoming of decentralization. But with COVID-19, virtual trainings are more common.”

  1. Client satisfaction is measured using data from the World Bank Country Opinion Surveys. Field presence is measured by the number of staff per lending operation in the country. The evaluation used 17 questions from the survey analysis. For details, see appendix E.
  2. In upper-middle-income countries, the evaluation found no correlations; in high-income countries, the sample size is too small to make an accurate judgment.
  3. It should be noted that even in cases where the relationships between the variables are statistically significant, the coefficients are quite small, implying that the impact of increased staff intensity on client satisfaction is small.
  4. In other Regions, such as Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and Pacific, and South Asia, there is no clear pattern, and the sample sizes are very small to make an accurate judgment. In fragile and conflict-affected situation countries, the general pattern is inconclusive as well.
  5. The scale to measure the time allocation for task team leaders’ tasks (which is on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being “no to little time” and 10 being “a very large amount of time”) did not provide much variation. Therefore, although the scale still shows where most time is spent, it does not correctly capture the differences in time amounts.
  6. Proactivity action indicator measures if any action has been taken to remedy a problem project.