Following on a phase 1 report completed in 2002 and a meta-evaluation in 2003, this report evaluates the World Bank's involvement in global programs using 26 case studies, including Global Water Partnership and Water and Sanitation Program. Given the rapid acceleration of Bank involvement in global and regional programs at this time, the report sought to derive lessons for the design and implementation of individual global programs and for the development of a broader strategic framework involving program selectivity, governance, management, financing and evaluation. Case studies were assessed for relevance, efficacy, efficiency, and bank performance.
- Kind of study: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Sample size: 26 programs
- Most World Bank-supported global public-goods programs largely met the Development Committee selectivity criteria for Bank involvement: emerging international consensus that global action is required, clear value added to the Bank's development objectives, need for Bank action to catalyze other resources and partnerships, and significant comparative advantage for the Bank. However, these criteria are amorphous and difficult to apply precisely.
- Many global programs were in reality established to promote consensus or "harmonize" donor approaches to problems, with capacity building in recipient countries relegated to a secondary role.
- There were no performance indicators to assess donor or internal agency behavior. It was also not clear if knowledge created by programs was what client countries needed or wanted as they have been inadequately represented in the "international consensus".
- There were major investment gaps in global health research and global public policy (especially developed country policies that affect developing countries).
- Governance was weak in several programs, with responsibility and accountability rarely clearly articulated and management ineffective.
- In the aggregate, global programs had added little new money to Official Development Assistance, with the exception of private funds from the Gates Foundation and to the Prototype Carbon Fund.
- The Bank needed to more clearly define its strategy for global programs and its exit strategies. Independent oversight of all its programs was needed.