Download Report - Independent Evaluation Group - World Bank

EVALUATION OF THE BANK’S ASSISTANCEduring 1998–02. Performance of the Chinaportfolio was marginally higher than theBankwide average (36 percent) during theearlier period and substantially higher than theBank average (50 percent) and comparatorcountries during the latter period. The reviewof institutional development impact by sectorand objectives showed a mixed performance.Bank impact on project management, procurementprocedures, and capacity building hasclearly been substantial at the project level,though there are questions about how widelythese institutional developments have diffused,particularly across provincial and lower-levelboundaries. Bank encouragement of citizenand community participation in decisionmaking(through water user associations,consultations on project designs, and the like)seems to have had some impact beyond theBank’s own projects. At the ministerial orindividual organizational level, the impact hasalso been substantial (for example, for theseparate transport ministries or for SEPA), butthe impact of projects involving coordination(for example, water basin management orintegrated rural development) seems to havehad limited impact beyond the particularproject. At the macro and sector level, IDI hasranged from modest to substantial. At themicro or project level, IDI has been improvingand in recent years has been substantial.Overall, institutional development impact israted substantial.Bank PerformanceTo what extent can China’s developmentoutcomes be attributed to the Bank? It would behard to argue that Bank assistance has madeChina worse off in any way, but apportioningattribution for successes is difficult. China’s ownefforts, along with advice and support from manysources, mean that most of China’s successes are“overdetermined.” The main strength of theBank has been its sustained support of an activityReform and institutionalchange in China havebeen gradual, but oncechanges have been made,they are rarely reversed.or program over anumber of years.Because of the Bank’slong-term involvement,it has been able to have asubstantial cumulativeimpact in a number ofareas, its views havegained a respectful hearing, and it has sometimesbeen well placed to take advantage of opportunitieswhen China was looking for support forchange. Bank performance has varied acrosssectors and over time, but the Bank has made apositive contribution in a large number of areas.In the Chinese context, the Bank is relativelysmall, but it has punched above its weight.One case of poor Bank performance shouldbe highlighted—the handling of the WesternPoverty Project, which led to the InspectionPanel investigation. Unfortunately, therepercussions of the Inspection Panel continue.The Bank still sometimes fails to get the rightbalance between development objectives andprotecting against reputational risk.Could the Bank have accomplished more if ithad been more ambitious or aggressive inpushing its own agenda? That seems unlikely.China clearly values the Bank more for its adviceand knowledge of international experience thanits money, and the Bank could not haveexpected to achieve more through conditionalitythan through persuasion and demonstration.Demonstration has generally worked wellwhen the partner agency had the authority todiffuse good practice and less well whereauthority was fragmented. Persuasion couldhave been better in some cases. The Bank hassometimes toned down its advice in anticipationof what it believes to be politically acceptable.2 China would, in fact, be better served bymore candid expression of Bank views.On balance, the Bank has performed well inChina, and overall Bank performance is ratedsatisfactory.49