Previously, ICRs and ICRRs discussed and rated the relevance of project development objectives (PDOs) and the design of the operation. They looked at the extent to which an operation’s objectives, design, or implementation were consistent with the country’s current development priorities, current World Bank country and sectoral assistance strategies, and corporate goals. The requirement for consistency (or alignment, as it was often called) did not explicitly require that the operation tackle the most challenging constraints to achieving development objectives (although the accompanying guidance called for the evaluation to take into account “whether the [World] Bank’s implementation assistance was responsive to changing needs and that the operation remained important to achieving country, [World] Bank, and global development objectives”). Indeed, many budget support operations had high-level objectives that were almost always relevant in developing economies (for example, strengthen public finances, promote private sector development, or improve public financial management). 

The relevance of PDOs for investment project financing (IPF) tended to be defined more narrowly, considering, among other things, the primary target groups of the project and the change or response expected from this group because of the project’s interventions. Investment projects also tended to focus on outcomes for which the project could reasonably be held accountable. According to the guidelines for IPF self-evaluation, a PDO “neither encompasses higher-level objectives beyond the purview of the project, nor [is it] a restatement of the project’s activities or outputs.” 

As a result of their relatively high level, most relevance assessments for DPF objectives and design were quite favorable. Indeed, over the past 5 years, the share of DPF operations with ratings for the relevance of objectives that were “moderately satisfactory” (MS) or better was above 95%.