Purpose

This evaluation assesses the World Bank Group’s contribution to addressing gender inequalities in countries affected by fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV)1 from 2010 to 2022.2 The evaluation focuses on two goals of the Bank Group’s gender strategy (fiscal year [FY]16–23)—promotion of women’s and girls’ economic empowerment (WGEE) and prevention of and response to gender-based violence (GBV)—and will inform the Bank Group’s upcoming gender strategy on how to orient gender approaches in FCV countries. The evaluation will also inform the Bank Group’s implementation of its FCV strategy (2020–25), particularly the Bank Group’s efforts to address gender inequalities in FCV countries.

The evaluation is timely given the recent spread of FCV situations around the world and the COVID-19 pandemic’s disruption of gender equality advances. The World Bank estimates that by 2030, up to two-thirds of the world’s poorest people could live in FCV settings (World Bank 2020d) and that, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 million more people are now living in extreme poverty in FCV countries (World Bank 2022e). There is also evidence that COVID-19 has caused gender gaps to increase (UN Women and UNDP 2022; World Economic Forum 2021). Women and children are especially vulnerable to increased poverty, discrimination, and GBV in FCV environments (Akseer et al. 2020; Bendavid et al. 2021; Buvinic et al. 2013; Kelly et al. 2021; Klugman 2022; Pereznieto, Magee, and Fyles 2017; World Bank 2019d). Recent estimates (Pathfinders 2019; UNDP and UN Women 2018) suggest that progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires mitigating FCV’s impacts on gender equality. The Bank Group’s FCV strategy (2020–25) states, “FCV both affects, and is affected by, global factors including . . . gender inequalities, [which] . . . tend to be magnified in FCV settings” (World Bank Group 2020, 7).

Methodology

Scope

This evaluation’s theory of change focuses on the interdependence of GBV and WGEE and their links with FCV. The theory of change of this evaluation assumes that the achievement of impactful changes in WGEE and GBV prevention and response in FCV-affected countries depends on recognizing the interdependence between them and addressing the root causes of gender inequalities.3 These changes require safe and equal access to jobs, resources, services, and community engagements and are rooted in a country’s enabling environment (figure 1.1 and appendix C).

The evaluation focuses on the Bank Group’s support to increase WGEE and prevent and respond to GBV. The evaluation defines WGEE as the women’s and girls’ ability to participate equally in existing markets; access to and control over productive resources; access to decent work; control over their time, lives, and bodies; and increased voice, agency, and meaningful participation in economic decision-making at all levels, from households to international institutions (UN Women 2018a). Likewise, GBV is an umbrella term for any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will and based on socially ascribed gender differences. It includes acts that inflict physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering; threats of such acts; coercion; and other deprivations of liberty. These acts can occur in public or in private (IASC 2015; World Bank 2015d). Economic (or financial) abuse—which is defined as a deliberate pattern of control of a partner’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources—is also increasingly recognized as part of GBV (Postmus et al. 2020).

Figure 1.1. Theory of Change

Image

Share Tweet Facebook WhatsApp Linkedin Email

Figure 1.1. Theory of Change

Image

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: GBV = gender-based violence; M&E = monitoring and evaluation

The evaluation assesses to what extent the Bank Group’s support to WGEE and prevention of and response to GBV in individual FCV countries has been relevant, inclusively owned, deep, sustainable, and scalable—that is, to what extent it has contributed to transformational change. This evaluation assesses the Bank Group’s support in terms of five elements that are highlighted in the FCV strategy (2020–25) and other Bank Group strategic documents. The FCV strategy (2020–25) recommends that operations are relevant to each specific FCV context, because “given the diversity of FCV challenges, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach” (World Bank Group 2020, ix). Where a government’s actions or policies are directly responsible for causing fragility, conflict, and violence, a context-specific, context-sensitive approach “identifies factors that divide societies; provides a clearer understanding of local contexts to avoid aggravating social tensions, reinforcing power imbalances, or exacerbating conflict risks; and may also help promote accountability, sustainability and local ownership” (World Bank Group 2020, 17). The FCV strategy also recognizes that inclusive ownership is critical in FCV-affected countries, where exclusion, inequalities, and perception of injustice are drivers of fragility and conflict, and state institutions lack legitimacy, accountability, and inclusiveness. The FCV strategy also affirms that “addressing the root causes of gender inequality and closing gender gaps in human capital, access to jobs and assets, and voice and agency must be a priority [of the Bank Group]” (World Bank Group 2020, 21)—what this evaluation defines as deep support. The FCV strategy stresses that the Bank Group will pursue sustainability by addressing FCV’s drivers and strengthening populations and institutional capacities and resilience. It also highlights the need to scale up interventions and the comparative advantage of the Bank Group in scaling up. This evaluation consolidates these five elements into the notion of “transformational change,” defined as a change that is relevant, inclusively owned, deep, sustainable, and large-scale. (See box 1.1 for definitions of each of these elements).4

“Transformational change” is a composite and dynamic construct for assessing change processes, and not just the intended and achieved outcomes from those processes. This lens is corroborated not only by the principles of the FCV strategy but also by external literature (ITAD 2019; UNDP 2011) and is fully aligned with the “transformational vision” of the Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015) and the general recognition that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires reducing gender inequalities (UNDP and UN Women 2018; UN Women 2018b), especially in FCV settings (UN and World Bank 2018; World Bank 2020d). As such, promoting WGEE and addressing GBV requires transforming gender norms (Cislaghi 2019; Heilman and Stich 2016; IRC 2019; Jayachandran 2021; Klugman 2022; Klugman et al. 2014; Marcus 2018; Marcus and Harper 2014; Sida 2009; Van Eerdewijk et al. 2017; World Bank 2015d),5 strengthening women’s and girls’ individual and collective agency (Evans and Nambiar 2013; Fox and Romero 2017; ICRW 2020; Kabeer 1999; Van Eerdewijk et al. 2017; World Bank 2012b), and working with formal and informal institutions to achieve gender-transformative change (Hillenbrand et al. 2015; Van Eerdewijk et al. 2017; World Bank 2012b, 2015d). (See appendix C for more details.) Therefore, the processes to achieve WGEE and reduce GBV are not just functional but are results in themselves. The approach also recognizes that achieving transformational change requires improving country systems’ enabling environments.6 Thus, the methodology of this evaluation adopts a case study approach that uses the country as the unit of analysis.

Achieving transformational change requires a long-term perspective that is best developed through the country-driven approach. The Bank Group recognizes that engagement in FCV countries must go beyond individual projects by adopting a systemic and long-term perspective to address the root causes of gender inequality and fragility (World Bank 2012b; World Bank Group 2020). This long-term perspective allows the Bank Group to work across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, as stressed by the Bank Group FCV strategy (2020–25). The Bank Group, then, “seeks to integrate long-term development considerations of institutional support and sustainability” (World Bank Group 2020, 25).

The main evaluation question is as follows: How can the Bank Group improve its support to FCV-affected countries to produce transformational changes in tackling GBV and promoting WGEE? This overarching question consists of three main questions, listed in box 1.2, and several subquestions (see appendix A).

Research Methods

The evaluation analyzes transformational change at the country level. More specifically, the team analyzed the Bank Group’s country program in six FCV countries (see appendix B), including the program’s gender-relevant strategies, financing, analytics, and engagements. The country focus aligns with the Bank Group’s country-centered approach to development (World Bank Group 2014) adopted by the FCV strategy 2020–25 (World Bank Group 2020), the gender strategy 2016–23 (World Bank 2015d), the 19th Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA 2020), the 20th Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA 2022), and International Finance Corporation (IFC) strategies (IFC 2019a). The country-driven approach assumes that gender gaps are most effectively addressed through system change at the country level (World Bank 2012b, 2015d, 2021f; World Bank Group 2014). The six countries—Burkina Faso, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, the Solomon Islands, and the Republic of Yemen—represent a diverse cross-section of country contexts but are not representative of all FCV countries. The evaluation team chose to analyze these few countries in depth, focusing on how and why changes occurred, rather than carrying out a cursory review of the Bank Group’s entire FCV portfolio.

The evaluation used three methods for collecting and analyzing qualitative evidence. First, the team carried out an in-depth desk review of Bank Group strategies, project documents, and analytical work for each of the case study countries. Each case study analyzed two types of projects: (i) those that promoted WGEE or prevented and responded to GBV as project development objectives or components, and not just as safeguards, and (ii) those that influenced WGEE but were not explicitly designed to do so, and were ideal for learning.7 The evaluation did not focus on the human development aspects of gender equality, so it excluded health and education projects, but it did include a health project in the Republic of Yemen because it had a “hidden” GBV case management component.8 The evaluation looked especially closely at the Sahel Women’s Empowerment and Demographic Dividend (SWEDD) project because it is one of the Bank Group’s regional flagship initiatives (World Bank 2014b, 2015d). Second, the team conducted more than 200 semistructured audio or video interviews with World Bank staff, IFC staff, project task team members, government partners, and national and international stakeholders from the media, academia, religious and traditional institutions, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), women’s rights organizations, and bilateral and multilateral donors. In Burkina Faso, a team member visited several target localities of two relevant World Bank projects,9 where she conducted 15 focus groups with women and adolescent girls and 10 in-depth in-person interviews with other key informants. She also held informal conversations with local actors and observed the women’s income-generating activities for one project. Third, the team conducted a literature review of articles, reports, and gray literature, including World Bank and IFC studies, and an analysis of national statistics (see appendix A for additional methodological details).

The evaluation team pursued three strategies to ensure rigor and quality in the methodology. First, the team developed detailed templates to guide the data collection, particularly for interviews and the desk analysis. These templates ensured that each case study focused on the same issues and collected the same type of evidence. Second, case studies were conducted by gender experts who were familiar with the country by having lived in the country, speaking the local language, or having already conducted gender-focused evaluations in that country. This allowed the evaluation to understand the local context and reach out to a broader and more diverse set of key informants. Third, almost all country cases relied on local consultants to organize interviews and transcribe and translate documents. In Burkina Faso, a local consultant also collected field data.

Limitations of the Evaluation

The evaluation’s reliance on country case studies limited the representativeness of the data. The evaluation is based on individual country case studies, and, therefore, the evidence is not representative of all FCV countries. The evaluation opted for depth in its analysis, not for breadth, and focused on processes as much as results. That said, the evaluation attempted to make the findings generalizable as well. It relied on established literature to build the theory of change, prepare the tools for extracting and analyzing information, and interpret the findings. The interviews helped triangulate the data.

COVID-19 and the unstable environment in FCV countries limited or delayed data collection and analysis. This was because the team could not organize missions to the countries and had to carry out most of the research remotely. Poor phone and internet connections caused interviews to be interrupted and routinely rescheduled, which greatly prolonged the duration of data collection. COVID-19 also impacted individual team members, key informants, or their families in various ways, which caused additional delays. Moreover, most case study countries had unstable environments and experienced various shocks during the data collection. This included multiple crises in Lebanon (see box 4.3), a coup in Burkina Faso, the Republic of Yemen’s ongoing conflict, and the assassination of Chad’s president and its aftermath. The evaluation planned to include a case study for Afghanistan, but this had to be dropped after the Taliban’s takeover. These difficulties limited the evaluation’s in-person research, thereby limiting the data’s richness.

The difficulty of finding experts in some countries caused further delays and limited the number of country case studies. This evaluation required a combination of abilities that proved to be hard to find. For example, an ideal team member would have evaluation skills, deep gender knowledge (particularly of WGEE and GBV), and strong knowledge of the country and its language. As such, the process of locating and selecting experts to conduct and support country case studies was delicate and time-consuming. It also limited the number of case studies that could be carried out.

Road Map

This evaluation consists of three main parts. The first part, or chapter 2, discusses the Bank Group’s challenges with improving the relevance, inclusive ownership, depth, sustainability, and scale of its support for WGEE and for GBV prevention and response in FCV countries. The chapter discusses three trade-offs that the Bank Group experienced when supporting FCV countries in WGEE and in GBV prevention and response—first, among depth, sustainability, and scale; second, among elements of the theory of change; and third, between humanitarian and development goals. The second part, or chapter 3, analyzes the improvements in the design of Bank Group projects as they moved from initial phases to subsequent phases and shows that projects approved after 2018 introduced innovative measures to reduce FCV’s drivers and impacts. The chapter discusses the Bank Group’s shift from a project-centric approach to a strategic country engagement approach to ease the trade-offs discussed in chapter 2 and facilitate transformational change in promoting WGEE and addressing GBV. The third part, or chapter 4, discusses the factors that constrain or enable the Bank Group’s ability to produce impactful change in promoting WGEE and preventing and responding to GBV in FCV countries. The chapter first examines how country programs prioritize WGEE and GBV issues in FCV contexts. Second, it looks at some of the financial and human capacity constraints to achieving transformational change. Third, it examines the Bank Group’s engagement, collaboration, and coordination with country-level stakeholders on WGEE and GBV issues. Fourth, it looks at the contextual factors of FCV countries that inhibit transformational change—including conflict dynamics, gender norms, COVID-19, and limited partner capacity—and the ways in which teams have overcome these constraints. Chapter 5 presents the evaluation’s main takeaways and recommends four actions that the Bank Group can take to improve its support for WGEE and for GBV prevention and response in FCV countries.