Suchergebnisse

Access to essential health services is an important aspect of development. Governments from both developed and developing countries are increasingly looking at public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a way to expand access to higher-quality health services by leveraging capital, managerial capacity, and knowhow from the private sector. Originally confined to the traditional infrastructure sectors of transport, water, or energy, PPPs are increasingly applied also in social infrastructure sectors, particularly for delivery of health services. PPPs and other forms of private sector involvement in health are now also an important element of the World Bank Group's response to country health challenges, as reflected in the 2013 World Bank Group Strategy, the 2008 World Bank Group Health Development Strategy, the 2015 joint World Bank Group Approach to Harnessing the Private Sector in Health, various CASs and CPFs and IFC's FY17-19 and prior Strategy and Business Outlook reports. The objective of this review is to provide insights into the Bank Group's work of applying PPP arrangements in the health sector, to distill knowledge with regard to what works (and what does not), review the quality of work in structuring PPP arrangements, and identify lessons to be learned from successful and failed efforts to structure health PPPs approved during FY04-15. The review encompasses all institutions of the Bank Group engaged in PPPs in health.

The World Bank offers three main categories of financing: investment project financing directly finances specific investments; Program for results financing uses country systems and disburses based on achievement of specific results; and Development Policy Financing (DPF) supports a government program of policy and institutional actions. The DPF instrument is intended to achieve development results primarily through the supported policy reforms and associated policy dialog and support. This learning product focusses on the World Bank's experience with DPOs in the Environment sector, broadly defined. For the purposes of this review, environmentalDPOs were defined to be any policy lending operation mapped to the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) Global Practice or, prior to that, the Environment Sector Board, or any other policy lending operation with an environmental or disaster risk management theme as the primary or secondary theme (see Appendix C). This experience covers a wide range of sectors, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, green growth, natural resource management, disaster risk management, forestry, environmental policy, and others. Much of the experience is very new, with 25 of the 64 operations yet to be evaluated. Many of the active programs are among the first environmental DPOs in their country or region. Many operations were designed and implemented by teams that included staff with relatively little policy lending experience, and so the opportunity for learning is substantial.

The World Bank Group's self-evaluation systems have expanded since they started 40 years ago, and compliance with requirements is mostly strong. They systems mesh well with the independent evaluation systems for which they provide information and the systems have been emulated and adapted by other development agencies. However, the self-evaluation systems primarily focus on results reporting and accountability needs and do not provide the information necessary to help the Bank Group transform into a "Solutions Bank" or develop learning to enhance performance as emphasized in its 2013 strategy. Information generated through the systems is not regularly mined for knowledge and learning except by IEG, and its use for project and portfolio performance management can be improved. The systems produce corporate results measures but need to produce value to staff and line management and to the primary beneficiaries of the "Solutions Bank"—client governments, implementing agencies, firms, and beneficiaries and citizens.

This evaluation assesses the early experience with the design and implementation of Program for Results (PforR) operations and identifies lessons and recommendations to strengthen this new instrument. When the report was completed in June 2016, none of the PforR programs had closed, and it was too early to draw definitive conclusions in many areas, but the evaluation has brought to light some important insights from the instrument's early design and implementation experience.

Land rights and the systems that administer them can vary significantly across the world and within countries (World Bank 2003). For a number of reasons, land rights may be unclear or insecure. Securing land rights plays an important role in driving economic growth and poverty reduction. In recent years there has been increasing awareness of the relevance of land tenure issues to food security, climate change, rapid urbanization, informality, and indigenous peoples' rights. The World Bank Group has a long history of developing and implementing projects aimed at securing land rights through a variety of interventions. This note synthesizes cross-cutting findings from 14 Independent Evaluation Group assessments of land administration projects that the World Bank has supported from 1998 to 2014. The project-level assessments reviewed for this report contain a wealth of information about how the Bank Group approached different problems related to strengthening land administration systems in diverse environments. This information is relevant to both land administration specialists and experts in other fields whose work is impacted by land tenure issues.

The year 2015 is pivotal in international development. In the lead-up to 2000, the global community came together at various conferences to agree on, for the first time in known history, shared development goals. The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set 18 targets that were aimed at significantly reducing disease, illiteracy, gender inequality, hunger, and poverty, and improving access to water and sanitation by 2015. Leading up to this point where the era of the MDGs concludes, progress has been monitored and discussions started well ahead of this momentous year to define and meet the more ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), building on and bringing to fruition what has been started under the MDG agenda. Much progress has been made toward achieving the MDGs. The world reached the poverty reduction target five years ahead of schedule, and progress has been reported in a number of other areas. However, considerable challenges remain: even while declaring success on MDG1, roughly a billion people remained in poverty. A large number of MDG targets will not be met by the end of 2015, and progress remains uneven among the different countries. Moreover, new challenges to progress are emerging deriving from natural and manmade calamities. To deliver on the twin goals and the post-2015 agenda, the Bank Group would benefit from a clearly articulated role, approach, and expected contribution to the SDGs, both externally for enhancing partnerships and internally to facilitate prioritization and synergies. As this paper has shown, the World Bank Group works actively in many areas relevant to the SDGs, actually many more than covered here, but various evaluations have pointed to the importance of multi-sector integrated approaches that challenge countries and their partners to find new ways of working. The challenges that the SDGs aim to address, and the SDGs themselves, are complex, and solutions will have to be tailored to context, bring together multiple actors, and benefit from dynamic, constantly adjusted planning and execution that is informed by ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

The development community is increasingly accepting the importance of evidence, feedback, and learning. Some of which is generated through research, monitoring, and self-evaluation during policy-making, program design, and implementation. Others come from feedback from people directly affected by interventions who have gained a greater voice, be it through third-party feedback mechanisms, social media, beneficiary surveys, or otherwise. And, there is independent evaluation. At the World Bank Group, the independent evaluation group (IEG) has over the past years deepened the evidence that can help development finance succeed in translating the sustainable development goals (SDGs) into actions and results. This paper brings together insights from a cross-section of relevant evaluations that cover various aspects of the large, multifaceted agenda of the SDGs and their financing needs.

Effective environmental and social risk management in development policy financing (DPF) is central to achieving the World Bank's goals of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity in a sustainable manner. If the World Bank is supporting far-reaching member country reforms that are intended to contribute to the twin goals, then it should seek to understand the impact of those reforms on the poor. It should also ensure that the country's natural capital and long-term growth prospects will not be undermined. The objective of this learning product is therefore to assess the application of the elements of the World Bank operational policy (OP 8.60) governing DPF related to the implementation of the environmental and social risk management requirements of the policy, and identify lessons learned and good practices. The focus of the study is on Bank actions, policies, procedures, and guidance for environmental and social risk management, based largely on a desk-based portfolio review of a large, random sample of development policy operations (DPOs), complemented by assessment of other relevant documents, and interviews with key stakeholders. This approach requires the Bank to determine whether specific policies supported by a DPO are likely to have significant poverty and social or environmental effects. The Bank emphasized the potential of OP 8.60 to promote positive environmental and social development from the time the policy was approved in 2004.

This report by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) summarizes the experiences of and draws lessons from the country program evaluations of four natural resource-rich countries: the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Zambia. It concludes that although the challenges identified in these countries are not unique, they manifest themselves with particular intensity in three closely interrelated areas that need to be defined and structured as a coherent strategy: (i) management of revenues from an exhaustible resource; (ii) growth and employment in the non-extractive sectors, and (iii) inclusive growth and reduction of poverty. Overall, looking at the four resource-rich countries in this evaluation, one does not see the World Bank Group as having a consistent framework for engagement, driven by the defining characteristics of these countries—their rich endowment with non-renewable natural resources and dependence on revenues from their exploitation. Each of the four stories evolved in a unique way that depended on how the country teams decided to react to differing country circumstances. The main challenge for the Bank Group in these countries today is how to stay relevant and competitive, as its value proposition is no longer its financial resources, but its knowledge and global experience, which may call for a more modest scope of interventions while keeping the focus on key challenges.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are long-term contracts between a private party and a government agency that strive to provide a public asset or service in which the private party bears both some risk and some management responsibility. If implemented well, PPPs can help overcome inadequate infrastructure that constrains economic growth, particularly in developing countries. The use of PPPs has increased in the last two decades; they are now used in more than 134 developing countries, contributing about 15–20 percent of total infrastructure investment. The World Bank Group has expanded its support to PPPs through a wide range of instruments and services. During the last 10 years, its support has increased about threefold, to nearly $3 billion per year. The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) assesses how effective the World Bank Group has been in helping countries use PPPs. In the evaluation, IEG examines the relevance of Bank Group support, how successful projects were, how the Bank Group coordinated support among its business lines (support to the public sector versus the private sector), and how it compares with the experience of other multilateral development banks with PPP support. IEG distills lessons to apply to the Bank Group's support of PPPs. Finally, IEG presents six recommendations that apply to both the organizational and the operational aspects of this work.

Integration of knowledge with lending is an enduring theme in World Bank strategies at the corporate and country levels. It rests on the widely shared proposition that Bank lending instruments could be more relevant and produce better results if they incorporate key analytical, country level knowledge. To be successful, development interventions must be informed by evidence, and evidence comes from knowledge. This is the idea behind Bank as a 'solutions bank,' integrating financial instruments and knowledge products into 'development solutions' that deliver results. A recent Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) evaluation suggests that the Bank's broad economic and sector work and technical assistance strongly inform Bank lending strategies (IEG 2008). PERs, for the purpose of this learning product, are identified as Bank knowledge products with a specific reference in their titles as Public Expenditure Review, whether they are multi-sector or single sector public expenditure reviews. They also include other analytical documents which deal with public expenditure issues, be they public finance reviews, studies of specific expenditure and debt issues, and even Country Economic Memoranda (CEMs) with a special focus on public expenditures. This broad definition should capture much (though not all) of the public expenditure-related analytical work at the Bank. Arguably, efficiency and allocation issues important in the design of DPOs and the reforms they support can only be addressed by such integrative, not partial or silo-type knowledge of specific subsector expenditures (e.g., tertiary education expenditure review).

The objective of this review is to synthesize existing evaluative evidence and generate new evidence on the quality of the Results Frameworks (RFs) of development policy operations (DPOs). The study is organized around a number of evaluative questions on various aspects of DPO design, implementation, reporting, and evaluation. Its focus is on the quality of RF, taking objectives and coverage for granted. The study does not cover the scope and coverage of reform programs underpinning DPOs, including the relevance of objectives, or the choice of policy areas and the links between DPOs and country assistance strategies. It generally does not look at program achievements and outcomes, except in cases when it is required for assessing the quality of prior actions (PAs). The structure of the review is: chapter one presents the methodology; chapter two has the findings with respect to the presentation and clarity of RFs; chapter three discusses evidence of the quality of PAs and their contribution to the robustness of RFs; chapter four discusses findings with respect to the use of programmatic approach in DPOs relevant for RFs; chapter five discusses strengths and weaknesses in the ME framework of DPOs; chapter six discusses reporting of DPO results at completion and implications for IEG validation and evaluation of DPOs.

The report is part of a series of learning products with limited objectives geared towards synthesizing existing knowledge as well as learning and gaining new insights into the factors that influence design, policy implementation, and performance of development policy loans. It aims to provide fresh insights and build on previous evaluations of Bank investment projects and research and analytical work (for example, recent independent evaluation group (IEG) work on development policy operations (DPOs) includes the evaluation of poverty reduction support credits (PRSCs), first and second financial crisis evaluations (which examined crisis DPOs), recent operations policy and country services (OPCS) DPO retrospectives, and new research presented in this report on aspects of DPOs using a combination of approaches). The quality of macro frameworks in DPOs alone has not been subject of in-depth study. This report aims to contribute to filling that gap with a: (i) preliminary analysis of the quality of macro-fiscal frameworks in DPOs, and (ii) a comprehensive database of project level DPOs and related country and economic policy and statistical information, which is a byproduct of the study.

From 2005 to 2013, a mining boom quickly promoted Mongolia from a low-income to a middle-income country. Although the World Bank Group strategy initially overlooked the challenge of the mining boom, the new country management team that came on board in 2005 decided to prioritize mining issues in a more selective framework. This involved taking a set of bold steps to support Bank Group engagement in the extractive industry, including basing for the first time a senior mining specialist in the field and conducting an in-depth political economy analysis. Building on this, the country team was able to design a comprehensive program of outreach to the government, parliament, and civil society to build a consensus on the need for efficient and fiscally sustainable management of earnings from the revenues derived from the mineral boom. The Independent Evaluation Group considers the Bank's performance to be satisfactory; however, its contribution to outcomes remains moderately satisfactory. The Bank revised its strategy to adopt relevant objectives centered on the mining agenda and designed an overall effective program. The Bank displayed flexibility and innovation in implementing the program and built awareness about environmental issues. As to results on the ground, Bank projects have had a highly satisfactory impact in improving rural livelihoods and reducing herders' vulnerability. Looking ahead, the Bank Group would need to: (i) build demand and capacity for good governance; (ii) pursue efforts to improve public investment; (iii) strengthen domestic capacity for policy simulation; (iv) assist in the strengthening of the banking system; and (v) support fiscal decentralization. In the interests of selectivity, the Bank could scale back its support for the urban sector.

From 2004 to 2012, Zambia experienced a combination of good economic policies and high rates of growth not seen since the early years after its independence. While growth was mainly driven by rising copper prices, other factors contributed to Zambia's ability to take advantage of this growth. The international debt relief programs in 2004-2005 almost eliminated public debt and provided the fiscal space for selective, high-priority investments and expanded social programs. The privatization of the copper mines brought new investment in rehabilitation and expansion of production. The period also saw a substantial expansion of primary education and progress in dealing with the most pervasive public health problems. These positive developments set the stage for Zambia to tackle its pervasive poverty. In practice, however, sustained growth over the period has led to little poverty reduction, especially in rural areas of the country. The Bank Group and other donors provided critical support at the beginning of the evaluation period, when Zambia's debt level became unsustainable. The Bank provided substantial support for capacity development and better functioning institutions. The Bank's efforts to strengthen public administration and improve governance met with some partial successes in enhanced audit and procurement capacity, and the achievement of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative compliance. However, despite nearly a decade of implementation, the Integrated Financial Management Information Systems (IFMIS), is still only partially operational. Further, the Zambian government has not followed through on its positive discourse regarding decentralization of government authority.