Completion and Learning Review of the Republic of Moldova - Country Partnership Framework FY18-FY22 (CLR)

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Asher

Independent Evaluation Group presents the Completion and Learning Review of the World Bank Group’s Country Partnership Framework for the Republic of Moldova covering FY18-FY22. The review assesses development outcome as Satisfactory and World Bank Group performance as Good, detailing progress across three focus areas: economic governance, service governance, and human capital development. It discusses how political instability, drought, COVID-19, the invasion of Ukraine, displacement, and energy price shocks affected implementation. The report also evaluates risk identification and mitigation measures, highlights gaps in the results framework, and summarizes key lessons on capacity, policy-reversal risk, and managing shifting priorities through flexible program design and ASA use.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages32

Reading Time1 h 21 min

Executive Summary

Ratings

Development outcome

WBG performance

Lessons learned

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group Completion and Learning Review Review The Republic of Moldova FY18-FY22 Country Partnership Framework November 18, 2022 Ratings | | CLR Rating | CLRR (IEG) Rating | | --- | --- | --- | | Development Outcome: | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | | WBG Performance: | Good | Good | I. Executive Summary i. This review of the World Bank Group’s (WBG) Completion and Learning Review (CLR) covers the period of the Country Partnership Framework (CPF) FY18-21, including its update in the Performance and Learning Review (PLR) dated April 22, 2021, which extended the CPF period by one year to FY22. (The PLR was thus prepared towards the very end of the original CPF period.) ii. The main purpose of the 2018 CPF was to support Moldova’s transition towards anew, more sustainable and inclusive development and growth model. This purpose was appropriate and fully in line with the previous SCD analysis. The CPF program underpinned this overall objective, with additional pandemic-related considerations at PLR stage. Consequently, the program did not address directly the twin goals (poverty reduction and the lower 40 percent), but it was implicit that the expected transition would benefit these two targets. The CPF program was consistent with the government’s stated priorities and the analysis of the SCD, and reflected lessons learned from the previous country program. During much of the CPF period Moldova suffered from an unstable political environment with shifting government priorities that affected negatively policy development and decision-making, which in turn affected WBG program implementation. In the last years of the CPF period, the country has been affected by multiple challenges – a severe drought in 2020, COVID-19, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with related political and security uncertainties, a refugee stream, and dramatic increases in gas prices. iii. IEG rates the CPF development outcome as Satisfactory. Of the seven objectives, four were Achieved, two Mostly Achieved, and one Partially Achieved. For Focus Area I (Economic governance – Strengthening the rule of law and accountability in economic institutions) there was progress on investment climate regulations and accountability in the management of public sector assets, and – after the target date – for regulatory framework for insurance sector, but only partial progress for registry of asset declarations. Focus Area II (Service governance – Improving efficiency, quality and inclusive access to public services) showed progress for climate services and for inclusive access to public services, but more mixed progress for quality and efficiency of public services. Focus Area III (Human capital development – Investing in people to build human capital) with only one objective had improvement for the quality of education. iv. On balance, IEG rates the WBG performance as Good. The overall priority was appropriate. The CPS objectives and the lending and ASA helped underpin this overall priority, but there are few stated linkages between the ASA and the objectives in the results framework. The program activities were well aligned with the government’s stated preferences, as well as with the development priorities identified in the 2016 SCD, and thus addressed important issues. However, some indicators in the results framework were unclear regarding meaning, measurement and timing. The framework could have been more helpful for program implementation. Key risks-Political and governance, Macroeconomic, Institutional capacity for implementation, and Fiduciary-were all well identified in the CPF and PLR. The CPF and PLR risk mitigating measures were adequate. They included reducing the reliance of investment lending on policy reforms, and making active use of ASAs to support the policy dialogue. Prior lessons were reasonably well reflected in the CPF. The Bank demonstrated f

FAQs

What period does the CLR cover for Moldova under the Country Partnership Framework?

It covers the Country Partnership Framework period FY18-FY21, including its extension in the Performance and Learning Review dated April 22, 2021 to reach FY22.

How does IEG rate Moldova’s CPF development outcome and WBG performance?

IEG rates the development outcome as Satisfactory and the WBG performance as Good.

What main challenges affected implementation during the CPF period?

The report cites an unstable political environment with shifting priorities, plus external shocks including a severe drought in 2020, COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with related uncertainty, a refugee inflow, and sharp increases in gas prices.

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Asher