Evaluation as a critical tool for accountability Civil society event at the World Bank spring meetings 2010, 23 April

Vinod Thomas (Director-General of Evaluation, WBG), Korinna Horta (Urgewald), Vince McElhanny (Bank Information Centre)

Context

1st IBRD capital increase since 1988.

Post financial crisis transition.

There is an increase in the amount of lending without adequate safeguards applied, a total of about 44% of development policy loans, carbon finance, financial intermediaries.

There is a prevailing assumption that a bigger Bank is a better Bank.

Proposed general capital increase (GCI) results framework raises questions about Bank learning.

Results management improvements point in opposite directions.

GCI Results Framework

We've heard repeatedly that Bank projects lack a monitoring and evaluations – that weak results frameworks PRSCs/DPLs have weak cause and effect.

ARDE 2009 – highlighted the infrequency of cost benefit analysis.

WBG Energy Strategy

The approach paper reflects a lack of learning from past evaluations.

No explicit monitoring and evaluation framework.

The GCI document focuses on outputs rather than outcomes and impact.

Baseline problems, unexplained methods. There is no mention of getting out of any areas of development, no recognition of an area where the Bank may not be the best institution to tackle it.

No explicit links with development priorities.

No details on instilling "results culture".

Ambiguous commitment to results based budgeting.

Expanded IEG mandate essential for development effectiveness.

Is the bank learning from the work of the IEG? There are mechanisms but it is still a gap.

This text may be freely used providing the source is credited.

This page is: <http://brettonwoodsproject.org/art.shtml?x=566261>

Published: 26 April 2010 , last edited: 26 April 2010

Viewings since posted: 3111