1 / 25

Helena Tang Lead Evaluation Officer September 2008

Using Knowledge to Improve Development Effectiveness: An Evaluation of World Bank Economic and Sector Work and Technical Assistance, 2000-06. Helena Tang Lead Evaluation Officer September 2008. Why did we evaluate ESW and TA?. The Bank considers knowledge important for development

jada-conner
Download Presentation

Helena Tang Lead Evaluation Officer September 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Knowledge to Improve Development Effectiveness: An Evaluation of World Bank Economic and Sector Work and Technical Assistance, 2000-06 Helena Tang Lead Evaluation Officer September 2008

  2. Why did we evaluate ESW and TA? • The Bank considers knowledgeimportant for development • ESW and TA are the Bank’s main knowledge products • Knowledge: long-standing agenda for the Bank • “Global knowledge bank” (1996) • One of 6 strategic pillars going forward • First comprehensive evaluation of these products • Inform Bank’s future strategy on knowledge and learning

  3. What are ESW and TA? • ESW • Economic reports (53 types) • Inform Bank activities (strategy and lending) • Influence client’s policies and/or programs • TA • Technical Advice • Implement reforms and strengthen institutions (drafting legislation, training in data analysis, knowledge sharing, etc.)

  4. 85 percent of AAA, FY00-06

  5. One-quarter of spending on country services, FY00-06

  6. What questions did we ask? • To what extent did ESW and TA meet their objectives? To what extent did the following affect the achievement of ESW and TA objectives? • Origination(client-requested or not) • Partnership in production with local institutions (government or others) • Technical quality • Dissemination

  7. What evaluation tools did we use? Five Sets of Evidence • 12 Country Reviews

  8. Country Review Selection Serbia Romania Jordan Bangladesh Mali Guyana Vietnam Malaysia Democratic Republic of Congo Peru Mauritius Lesotho

  9. What evaluation tools did we use? Five Sets of Evidence • 12 Country Reviews • Electronic Surveys of in-country stakeholders • Specific ESW • Specific TA • General • Electronic Surveys of all ESW and TA TTLs • Electronic Survey of loan TTLs • Statistical and econometric analysis

  10. MAIN FINDINGS

  11. Client views on ESW and TA • Clients find Bank ESW and TA more useful than those provided by other institutions • Clients valueBank ESW and TA for their high quality, objectivity, and provision of international perspectives • Clients generally prefer TA over ESW(IBRD & IDA) • Middle income country (MIC) clients prefer TA and ESW over lending • Some MIC clients clearly prefer de-linking TA and ESW from lending

  12. Client country respondents had a range of views on the effectiveness of ESW and TA At least two-thirds gave an above average rating

  13. Examples of effective ESW: Vietnam PER • Budget legislation • MTEF • Capacity

  14. Examples of effective ESW: ICAs • Privatization (Serbia) • Competitiveness strategy (Guyana) • Labor law, property registration, deregulation of public service delivery (Malaysia)

  15. Example of effective TA: Mauritius Aid for Trade • Just-in-time advice on trade reform program • Analysis of reform scenarios and effects • Recommendations incorporated in government reform program

  16. ESW improved Bank activities • Shaped country assistance strategies • Improved lending quality • Presence of relevant ESW associated with better loan quality at entry • Around 90 percent of DPL but only around 60 percent of investment loans

  17. What made ESW and TA effective? • Technical Quality • Good quality ESWrequires resources • ESW better resourced in IBRD than in IDA countries • Bank budget and not trust-fund matters • Origination • Client interest and buy-in essential but productscan be originated by the Bank

  18. What made ESW and TA effective? • Partnership • Close collaboration with clients throughout the process but not necessarily co-production • Collaboration takes time (completion of forest sector review in DRC delayed nearly 2 years) • Dissemination • Sustained engagement beyond one-off dissemination • Broad vs targeted • Language and translation

  19. What made ESW and TA effective? • Government capacity • Lower in post-conflict and some low income countries (DRC, Lesotho) • Lower in countries with high turnover of senior government officials (Jordan, Serbia, and in the sector ministries in Peru)

  20. RECOMMENDATIONS

  21. Recommendation #1 • Reinvigorate the mandate(underpinned FY99 ESW reforms) of a strong knowledge base on countries where Bank is providing (planning to provide) funds

  22. Recommendation #2 • For IDA countries, ensure ESW is adequately resourced, even if it means fewer ESW in some countries

  23. Recommendation #3 • Enhance institutional arrangements: substantive task team presence in country offices, and include a clear strategy for sustained post-delivery engagement

  24. Recommendation #4 • Recognize and build on client feedback to help counter-balance current Bank incentives for lending over non-lending, and ESW over TA Tell Us What You Think Feedback

  25. Recommendation #5 • Take results tracking framework more seriously, including systematizing client-feedback

More Related