small-scale testing and determining whether results can be generalized to different settings. Surveys suggest that 80 percent of evaluators and task team leaders think that IEs have contributed, or are anticipated to contribute, to the global knowledge of “what works.” Based on survey data from World Bank staff and evaluators and an external assessment of knowledge priorities, IEs initiated in recent years (2007–10) appear better targeted to filling global knowledge gaps. At IFC, with a few exceptions, IEs are not deliberately selected to close global knowledge gaps. Compared with other sectors, fewer IEs have been done in the private sector, and there are several private sector development topics where there is a knowledge gap (for example, financial literacy and business training). IFC IEs for the most part have been chosen primarily to supplement selfassessment of projects rather than to fill global knowledge gaps, although the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, IFC staff who responded to the IEG survey perceive that IFC IEs contributed to the global knowledge of what works. In a recent effort to contribute more to the private sector knowledge base and IFC’s business, IFC has partnered with academia and provided grants for implementing innovative IEs. Factors that affect the scope and relevance of IEs at the World Bank Group include IE selection and coordination, operational linkages, funding, staff capacity, and incentives. In particular, issues related to the last three of those factors persist and can inhibit the Bank Group’s IE initiatives from realizing their full potential: • Interviews with senior management of the World Bank revealed that the selection of IEs in non-human development sectors is considered to be opportunistic, whereas the human development sectors are perceived to have adopted a more systematic approach to identification of IEs. Indeed, the roll-out of SIEF has improved strategic IE selection and financing, most widely in the human development sectors. Meanwhile, other IE initiatives, such as the creation of IE thematic programs and the adoption of the programmatic model by a growing number of IE programs both in human development and non-human development, has improved prioritization of IE topics and strategic coordination between DIME and project teams in IE design. At IFC, where the use of IE as a tool is not as developed as in the World Bank, the selection of IEs has not been guided by a strategic framework; however, the recent IFC Evaluation Strategy, approved in FY12, moves in this direction. • IEs that are not a formal part of the project and M&E plan are less likely to be used as an integral part of the project M&E. This holds true even if the IE is randomized and/or planned before the intervention is implemented. At the World Bank, the weak integration of IEs with project and M&E plans was more prevalent in older IEs. For instance, less than one-fourth of completed IEs were a formal part of project and M&E design, compared with more than a half of ongoing IEs, and newer IEs are more often reported to be integral to project M&E than older ones.
Overview xix