uation. No similar studies were available for use in assessing the contribution of the Bank to the observed changes.
TABLE A.5
Excluded Countries Czech Republic
Consequently, this assessment was based on the interviews conducted with implementing agencies and other stakeholders, combined with information available in the relevant PADs, Implementation Completion and Results Reports, and other project documents.
Equatorial Guinea Estonia Fiji Gabon Hungary Korea (Republic of )
VII. Methodology for Results Assessment in Zambia
Malaysia
The Zambia study began with a review of a total of 49 Bank operations, of which two were Institutional Development Fund grants; 36 of the operations had closed, comprising 21 investment projects, 13 policy operations, and 2 Institutional Development Fund grants. The PADs were reviewed for 13 active operations (1 Development Policy Operation and 12 investment projects) for the extent to which gender was addressed in the preparatory documents. Of the sample of Bank projects, three closed projects were selected for more intensive examination because of their explicit concern with gender. These three projects were the Zambian Social Investment Fund; the Technical Educational, Vocational and Entrepreneurship Training; and the Drought Recovery Project.
Serbia
Montenegro Namibia Seychelles Slovenia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Togo Turkmenistan Zimbabwe Source: IEG.
Programmatic documents reviewed include three CASs (World Bank 1999b, 2004g, 2008n); a Country Assistance Evaluation (IEG 2002), and a Country Gender Assessment (World Bank 2004h), as well as two Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (World Bank 2000b, 2007i), which are in effect the multiyear National Development Plans.
of beneficiaries gave semistructured interviews; a more freeform approach was used for key informants, starting with the narrative of project execution and leading to issues of gender-specific economic and social outcomes, particularly relating to women’s economic empowerment and decision making.
Sample design and data collection instruments The methodology was openly qualitative, resources being insufficient to support a quantitative survey. It is in essence a meta-evaluation, supported by a small field ground-validating exercise. Brief field investigations were conducted in three localities, two rural and one urban, to supplement information obtained from informants and documentary analysis. Interviews were held with key local project implementers and with beneficiaries.
The broader cohort of operations was subjected to a more generic analysis of key documents: PADs (SARs) and program documents, Implementation Completion and Results Reports, and, where available, Project Performance Assessment Reports.
An attempt was also made to identify and interview beneficiaries of the drought relief program. Individuals or groups
For the country context, a comparative content analysis of gender was done for the CASs and portfolio reviews. These findings were then related to the evolving context over the last 10 years and to the gender approaches of government planners, of some of the key cooperating partners, and of a few Bank and project staff and civil society organizations.
Appendix A: Evaluation Methodology
|
67