The World Bank Group’s (WBG) Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is intended to be the primary tool guiding its strategic engagement with borrowing countries, typically over a four-to-six-year period. The process is structured in multiple stages – including the development of a Systematic Country Diagnostic, internal review, formal negotiations with the borrowing government and a mid-term Performance and Learning Review. While the CPF is often framed as a tool for partnership, decision-making power remains largely with Bank staff and government counterparts, limiting the scope for civil society organisations (CSOs) and community engagement. Moreover, the relationship between the Bank and states reflects an imbalance of power, particularly in times of high capital costs and countries’ relative lack of options for project financing.

In January 2025, the Bank unveiled a revised CPF approach, promising a more outcome-driven and collaborative model through greater outcome orientation, simplified methodologies to monitor progress, and strengthened partnerships and knowledge sharing. The coverage period will also increase to up to ten years to better account for longer term development impacts. This review comes in response to the G20’s calls for “bigger, better, and more effective” Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), specifically demanding faster, less bureaucratic lending, as well as increased national ownership to better meet countries’ sustainable development goals and address global and regional challenges. However, a closer analysis raises serious concerns about the limitations of the proposed framework, particularly regarding its ability to address issues of power asymmetries, democratic accountability and the risk of further entrenching a development model that has failed to deliver transformational economic development in part because it prioritises private sector interests over rights-based, transformative alternatives (see Inside the Institutions, What are the main criticisms of the World Bank and the IMF?).

A more selective approach: measuring what matters or manipulating metrics?

One of the key changes introduced by the new framework is a push for a greater focus on key issues, limiting the CPF to just three-to-four priority outcomes intended to enhance effectiveness of WBG interventions and align them with critical national development priorities. However, this approach raises concerns about how these priorities are selected and whether marginalised communities and civil society will have a meaningful role in shaping these frameworks. Historically, WBG operations have often been criticised for bias toward corporate interests rather than the pressing needs of communities or national development priorities. Without a transparent, inclusive and participatory process, this new emphasis on selectivity may sideline important but politically contentious issues such as land rights and reforms, labour protections and environmental safeguards.

The introduction of the Bank’s revamped Corporate Scorecard to measure the impact of CPFs on selected outcomes is another major shift. Instead of relying heavily on custom monitoring frameworks within each CPF, the Scorecard will provide standardised, institution-wide indicators reflective of the Bank’s goals – ensuring consistency, comparability and a clearer link between country-level efforts and global development objectives. While greater accountability through quantifiable targets is a positive development, it also raises fundamental concerns about prioritising easily measurable, market-oriented, and often profit-driven activities over structural transformation – an indicator that is conspicuous by its absence (see Observer Autumn 2024). For instance, measuring job creation without reference to decent work – or the broader social and economic conditions in which it is created – can lead to misleading conclusions about progress. Furthermore, an overemphasis on numerical indicators can incentivise project designs that produce quick wins rather than fostering long-term, systemic change.

Business as usual: the private sector’s growing grip on development

While the World Bank’s revised approach places greater rhetorical emphasis on mobilising private finance – particularly through earlier upstream engagement to shape markets – the strategy reflects a continuation, rather than a departure, from longstanding institutional priorities. The updated framework underscores early collaboration with the private sector and the expanded use of existing WBG tools such as guarantees, blended finance, and risk-mitigation instruments. Although framed as a new direction, these mechanisms have long been central to the Bank’s model for attracting private capital, despite concerns that this approach often prioritises investor returns over equitable development outcomes, reinforcing global inequality and leaving countries as “price takers,” heavily reliant on external finance and vulnerable to global shocks (see Briefing, Civil Society calls for rethink of World Bank’s Evolution Roadmap).

The renewed focus on public-private partnerships (PPPs) similarly reflects an evolution in framing rather than a fundamental shift in strategy. Whereas PPPs were previously treated primarily as project-level solutions, the WBG now encourages their early integration into national development plans (NDPs). However, this intensification of PPPs raises longstanding concerns about the deepening privatisation of essential services like healthcare, education and infrastructure. Such a model risks undermining human rights, further marginalising low-income communities, and advancing financialisation trends that benefit corporate actors at the expense of public welfare (see Report, Financialisation, human rights and the Bretton Woods Institutions). The Bank’s persistent failure to adequately monitor the private investments it champions has already led to numerous instances of displacement, exploitation and environmental harm – challenges that the revised framework is unlikely to address meaningfully (see Observer Spring 2024, Spring 2015).

Partnerships, efficiency and expertise – trojan horse for corporate influence?

The new CPF aims to streamline internal processes by removing mid-cycle Performance and Learning Review, introducing annual business planning cycles and simplifying overall approval procedures. Given the Bank’s incentive structures that already put a strong focus on faster disbursement, these reforms could amount to a procedural facelift – accelerating project approvals without addressing deeper structural shortcomings in quality, accountability and alignment with NDPs (see Observer Winter 2024).

The creation of Knowledge Advisory Teams (KATs) is being positioned as a mechanism to ensure that global best practices and technical expertise are embedded into country strategies under the new CPF model. Alongside this, the revised framework seeks to deepen partnerships with a wide range of external actors, including other multilateral institutions, governments and private sector entities. While partnerships can be valuable, there is a lack of clarity and process for engagement, which risks creating development strategies skewed towards profit-driven actors rather than public interest priorities, with the Bank already having a bias towards corporate-friendly solutions over transformative action (see Briefing, Gambling with the planet’s future?).

A genuine rethink or more window dressing?

The recently published Pakistan CPF (FY26–35) provides a revealing test case for the revised framework in action. The CPF focuses on six high-impact objectives, including enhanced climate resilience and increased productive private investment. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the World Bank’s private sector arm – is positioned as a key player in supporting Pakistan’s development, engaging early with the government and other stakeholders to identify and remove barriers to private investment, aligning with the WBG’s broader shift toward shaping markets. The streamlined process promises agility, but risks bypassing critical safeguards and oversight, particularly in fragile contexts like Pakistan.

The World Bank’s new approach is being framed as a strategic shift towards greater impact, efficiency and inclusivity. However, it appears to be largely repackaging the existing neoliberal paradigm while streamlining operations that risk weakening accountability. If the Bank is serious about rethinking its engagement, CPFs must genuinely support countries’ NDPs and long-term economic transformation – not merely short-term growth. Lessons from the 2024 World Development Report on the “Middle Income Trap” highlight the risks faced by countries that fail to diversify their economies, build strong institutions and invest in human rights. Similarly, the experience of low-income countries detailed in the recent report about the International Development Association’s “lost decade”- marked by stagnant progress despite high levels of financial support – demonstrates the dangers of focusing on disbursement volumes over impact and structural change. As CSOs have long claimed, a truly transformative CPF must be built on democratic participation, public accountability and a bold reimagining of development as a rights-based, inclusive and environmentally just process.