In a new note, I take a close look at IDA’s new results management system, which took effect last week at the start of the 21st replenishment and will run through June 30, 2028. I did this for two reasons: 1) there are significant changes to how IDA will measure results in IDA21; and 2) many stakeholders depend on result indicators to help advocate for its financing.
During IDA21 negotiations, shareholders agreed to replace a stand-alone results measurement system with the World Bank Group (WBG) scorecard, aligning indicators across IDA, the IBRD, the IFC, and MIGA. The scorecard has 22 outcome indicators that will be measured against 22 country context (baseline) indicators in social protection, health, education, food security, water and sanitation, infrastructure, digital services, jobs, gender, fragility, and private investment. For example, there is a baseline indicator on the percentage of the population using the internet and a results indicator on the number of additional users due to IDA’s financing.
The alignment is a welcome change from previous replenishments, which had several “orphan” indicators that did not offer any real insights into IDA’s performance. For example, IDA20 included an outcome indicator on people provided with access to clean cooking, but no baseline figure to compare against. It also included baseline indicators on access to contraception and adolescent fertility rates but lacked any relevant outcome indicators.
But there is also a downside to this new approach: by hewing so faithfully to the WBG scorecard, important indicators especially relevant for IDA countries are no longer included. For example, IDA now has only one results indicator under health: millions of people receiving quality health, nutrition, and population services. Previously, these were broken down by category, giving stakeholders a better understanding of IDA’s impact. By contrast, the scorecard has two digital-related outcome indicators: millions of people using broadband internet and millions of people using digitally enabled services.
On gender, the contrast between IDA20 and IDA21 is especially stark. Donors agreed to adopt one overarching goal—to implement the new WBG gender strategy in all IDA countries—matched against one broad outcome indicator: “millions of people benefiting from actions to advance gender equality, of which (%) from actions that expand and enable economic opportunities,” which is too vague to show whether or where IDA interventions are having an impact.
As I discuss in the note, implementation of the IDA gender strategy is a worthy goal, but there are risks of haphazard execution, especially for governments that do not view gender equality as a priority.
The bottom line is that while the goal of corporate alignment is a worthy one, I fear that the decision to eliminate results indicators related to human capital and gender could make it harder for some stakeholders to advocate effectively for IDA in the future.
Read the full note.
