About Contact
Saturday, May 30, 2026

Zero Club – Health


The Zero Club (Part 10)  ·  Health in Africa  ·  MDB Reform Platform

Health in Africa: 14 Countries, 55 Projects, $3.0 Billion Committed, Zero Satisfactory

Bottom Line

The Health Zero Club is not 14 separate country failures. It is one institutional pattern repeated 55 times across two instruments. The MTI Zero Club showed that DPF conditionality rewards legal compliance over functional change. The Health Zero Club shows that IPFs — with their procurement, results frameworks, and supervision — produce the same result in the same countries. The Moderately Satisfactory equilibrium absorbs failure into partial achievement and renders it invisible in corporate reporting. The lessons are identified, documented, and repeated. The design model does not change.

14countries in the Zero Club. DRC, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Angola, CAR, Congo-Brazzaville, Eritrea, Lesotho, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Comoros, São Tomé.
55Health, Nutrition & Population investment projects evaluated by IEG. Not one rated Satisfactory or Highly Satisfactory.
$3.0bncommitted to Zero Club countries. 20% of all Africa Health commitment. Zero percent S+. Every dollar will be repaid.
0%Satisfactory. The modal rating is MS — partial achievement. Full achievement never occurred in 36 years of lending.
📄
Full Paper — 40 Pages (PDF)
IEG database (March 2026), 207 Health projects in SSA, HCI 2010–2020 trend analysis (14 countries), CPIA Building Human Resources (2006–2024), Global Fund OIG audits (Angola, DRC, Congo-Brazzaville, Kenya), six failure modes from 55 IEG lesson texts, DRC ($715M) and Cameroon ($163M) ICRR deep dives, 14-country annex, six-country addendum, MS Equilibrium cycle diagram, Missing Counterfactual box.

↓  Download Full Paper (PDF)

The Instrument Test

The MTI Zero Club (Part 9) documented 14 African countries where budget support — Development Policy Financing — never achieved a Satisfactory outcome. The obvious rebuttal: DPF conditionality rewards form over function, so perhaps the instrument is the problem.

The Health Zero Club tests that rebuttal directly. Health projects are Investment Project Financing — IPFs with procurement, disbursement conditions, results frameworks, supervision missions, and implementation units that DPFs lack. In 14 African countries, 55 health IPFs over up to 36 years produced zero Satisfactory outcomes. The problem is not the instrument.

THE INSTRUMENT FINDING: MTI failed through DPFs. Health failed through IPFs. Same countries. Same outcome. The binding constraint is the interaction between project design, implementation discipline, and actual institutional capacity — not the choice of financing instrument.

The Anchor Case: Kenya

Kenya is not a fragile state. It is a lower-middle-income country with functioning institutions, a large private health sector, a Ministry of Health that coordinates Global Fund, Gavi, PEPFAR, and bilateral programmes simultaneously, and 36 years of sustained Bank health engagement.

P-CodeProjectFYRatingCommit
P001312Population IVFY1990U$36M
P001339Health RehabilitationFY1992MU$31M
P001333Sexually Transmitted Infections ProjectFY1995MS$52M
P066486Decentralised Reproductive HealthFY2001U$98M
P070920HIV/AIDS Disaster ResponseFY2001MU$50M
P081712Total War Against HIV/AIDS (TOWA)FY2007MS$135M
P074091Health Sector SupportFY2010MS$100M
P152394Transforming Health SystemsFY2016MS$191M

Eight projects. $694 million. 36 years. Ratings: 2 Unsatisfactory, 2 Moderately Unsatisfactory, 4 Moderately Satisfactory. Never once Satisfactory. Commitment grew from $36 million to $191 million. The diagnosis grew more sophisticated. The results did not improve.

THE KENYA FINDING: Eight projects. $694 million. 36 years. A non-fragile, lower-middle-income country. The Bank’s own evaluation system never rated a single health project Satisfactory. Kenya raises the question of why sustained engagement and institutional maturity still did not produce a single Satisfactory outcome.

The Independent Test: Human Capital Index

The Bank’s own Human Capital Index — combining child survival, adult survival, stunting, and education — provides the independent test. If $3 billion in health lending produced transformational results, they should be visible in the Bank’s own flagship human capital metric.

CountryHCI 2010HCI 2017HCI 2020ChangeWB Commit
DRC0.3690.366−0.003$982M
Kenya0.5180.547$694M
Burkina Faso0.3200.3690.384+0.064$270M
Cameroon0.3800.3940.397+0.018$253M
Angola0.3610.362−0.001$131M
Congo-Brazzaville0.4090.4200.419+0.010$89M
Comoros0.4090.405−0.004$21M

Source: World Bank Human Capital Index, 2020. HCI comparison is illustrative rather than causal.

At minimum, the HCI data do not reveal gains in Zero Club countries that are visibly larger than regional trends, despite $3 billion in Bank health commitment. Cameroon gained +0.018 on $253M — less than half the SSA average. DRC, Angola, and Comoros declined. The Bank can get people to clinics. It cannot ensure that what happens inside the clinic is adequate.

The Six Failure Modes

IEG lesson text across the 55 Zero Club projects was analysed systematically. Six failure modes emerge, documented in the Bank’s own evaluation language. M&E failures: 58 mentions. PBF breakdown: 42. Procurement/fiduciary collapse: 38. Capacity mismatch: 23. Devolution without readiness: 23. Staff turnover: 22.

Failure ModeCountriesIEG Language
Overly ambitious designCameroon, DRC, Angola“Overly complex and risky projects are unwise to embark upon, even in the presence of political pressure.” (Cameroon, FY1995, HU)
PBF collapseCameroon, Burkina Faso, Congo-Brazza, CAR“Scaling up too quickly can limit the ability to adopt previous learning.” (Cameroon, FY2016, U)
M&E that cannot measureKenya, Cameroon, Burkina Faso“Data availability is critical to ensure adequate monitoring.” (Kenya, FY2016, MS)
Devolution without capacityKenya, Lesotho“Staffing in the PMT was not sufficient to support and supervise 47 counties.” (Kenya, FY2016, MS)
Post-conflict state absenceDRC, CAR, Sierra Leone“The absence of a TTL on the ground can critically affect a project’s ability.” (DRC, FY2004, U)
Staff turnover + institutional amnesiaCameroon, DRC, Kenya“Frequent team changes, resulting in significant loss of expertise and continuity.” (Cameroon, FY2016, U)
“The lessons are identified, documented, and repeated. The design model does not change.”

Two ICRR Deep Dives

DRC P147555 — $715M to Moderately Satisfactory

A $715 million project that achieved real service gains but never escaped the Moderately Satisfactory equilibrium.

The DRC Health System Strengthening Project is the single largest health investment project in Africa. Approved at $220M in December 2014, it grew through five additional financings to $715M. IEG rated it Moderately Satisfactory. What worked: ANC visits rose from 36% to 65%, immunisation from 62% to 71%, contraceptive prevalence from 6% to 27%. What did not: the M&E baseline was drawn from the 1984 census — 30 years before the project started. Targets were lowered in the 2020 restructuring; the project was then rated Substantial against the reduced targets but only Modest against originals.

Fraud and fiduciary failure: “High levels of corruption and inappropriate transactions in the selection of local staff, with fraud and corruption issues particularly in the province of Equator” — which was eventually removed from the project. $906,345 in ineligible expenses. Efficiency: Modest. PBF administrative costs were 26% of PBF spending. The rating absorbs fraud, a province removed for corruption, 1984 census baselines, dropped components, and lowered targets into a single word: Satisfactory enough. This is the MS equilibrium at $715 million.

Cameroon P156679 — $163M to Unsatisfactory

The Cameroon Health System Performance Project is the largest U-rated health project in the Zero Club. Efficiency rated Negligible — the worst possible. The definitive case study of scaling without learning.

The previous health project ran PBF in 44 health districts. This project expanded to all 194 districts, added refugee services, an emergency component, and a GFF investment case — all simultaneously. The project’s own impact evaluation (De Walque et al., 2021) found that “outcome differences between the PBF treatment group and the increased financing group were not statistically significant.” One of the most consequential findings in the Zero Club: the Bank’s preferred health financing instrument could not demonstrate it outperformed unconditional transfers.

$30 million — one-third of total expenditure — was spent verifying payments. The refugee grant: $30M approved for refugees in Northern Cameroon. “No data was reported and no activities were carried out.” Full $30M cancelled. No PDO indicators were reported from November 2019 to June 2022 — nearly three years of a $163M project with no results data. Cameroon will repay the IDA credit in full.

The Comparator Test

The Global Fund’s Office of the Inspector General provides the cross-institutional test. In three Zero Club countries, the Global Fund also struggles:

Angola (OIG 2020)

“Global Fund grants in Angola are performing poorly.” HIV deaths +29%, TB cases +19%, malaria incidence +48% since 2010. “These are systemic issues that will not be addressed with short-sighted tactical fixes.” The Global Fund invested $300M. The Bank committed $131M. Neither institution produced its intended outcomes.

DRC (OIG 2016, 2019)

Supply chain controls: Ineffective (2016). Financial management: Needs Significant Improvement (2019). $25.3M in non-compliant expenditure from a $77.5M sample. $2 billion in GF grants since 2003. $982M in Bank health lending. Both institutions committed at scale. Neither achieved its performance threshold.

Congo-Brazzaville (OIG 2022)

“In the past 10 years, little progress has been made in fighting the three diseases. This is a result of both limited national government support and the limited scope of Global Fund grants.” Both institutions doubled allocations. Neither changed the trajectory.

Kenya (OIG 2015, 2022)

Rated “generally effective” (2015), “performing reasonably well” (2022). HIV prevalence fell from 10.5% to 6.0%. Yet the Bank committed $694M to health and never achieved Satisfactory. In Kenya, the Global Fund’s focused model worked. The Bank’s did not.

THE FLOOR-CEILING FINDING: Institutional environment determines the floor — below which no delivery model works (Angola, DRC, Congo-Brazzaville). Delivery model determines the ceiling in countries where basic institutional capacity exists (Kenya). The Bank’s health IPF model operates as though the floor has been reached. In half the Zero Club, it has not.

The Moderately Satisfactory Equilibrium

Rating distribution across the 55 Zero Club projects: 29 MS (53%), 17 MU (31%), 7 U (13%), 2 HU (4%). MS is not failure. It is not success. It is the equilibrium: enough delivery to avoid an Unsatisfactory rating; enough disbursement to sustain the pipeline; insufficient achievement for transformation; but institutionally acceptable.

The MS equilibrium is self-reinforcing. A project rated MS does not trigger institutional consequence — no lending pause, no portfolio review, no design revision. The next project is prepared while the current one is still rated MS. Commitment grows. The diagnosis grows more sophisticated. The lessons are identified, documented, and repeated. The design model does not change.

THE MISSING COUNTERFACTUAL: What would happen if countries with three consecutive below-Satisfactory health projects automatically triggered an independent portfolio review before another health project could be approved? The Bank has no such mechanism. IEG documents the lessons. Management acknowledges them. The next project is prepared. The counterfactual — a system that connects outcome performance to lending authority — has never been tested because no institutional actor has an incentive to propose it.

Where Health Works

The Zero Club argument is strengthened by acknowledging where Health succeeds — and why:

CountryS+ RateCommitWhy It Worked
South Sudan67.9%$248MExternal implementation discipline; bounded objectives; UN/NGO delivery
Guinea62.6%$151MDisease-specific focus (malaria, Ebola); bounded operational endpoints
Mali61.0%$245MNarrow nutrition objectives with measurable anthropometric targets
Ethiopia50.1%$320MExisting Health Extension Programme; Bank built on it rather than creating it
RwandaEscapedStrong state implementation discipline; Imihigo performance contracts; integrated PBF

Health succeeds where design is focused on specific, measurable outcomes; institutional capacity matches delivery requirements; external constraints or national platforms enforce discipline; and objectives are bounded rather than aspirational. Rwanda demonstrates that Zero Club status is not permanent. Countries can exit the pattern when implementation discipline changes.


The Case Study Series

#CaseCommitmentS+ RateStatus
1Nigeria Water$1.8bn0.4%Published
2Angola DPF$2.2bn0%Published
3South Africa Energy (Eskom)$9.13bnPublished
4Ghana FCI~$500M0%Published
5DRC Portfolio$6.7bn6.1%Published
6DRC Inga$107M+Published
7Somalia~$900M89%Published
8Rwanda$4.6bn68.5%Published
9Zero Club — MTI in Africa$10.4bn0%Published
10Zero Club — Health in Africa$3.0bn0%This paper
📄
Full Paper — 40 Pages (PDF)
Includes: Why S+ not MS+ (IFC/MIGA cross-reference), IPF vs DPF instrument comparison, HCI 2010–2020 trend analysis (14 countries), CPIA Building Human Resources, Global Fund OIG cross-institutional comparator (Angola, DRC, Congo-Brazzaville, Kenya), six failure modes from 55 IEG lessons, DRC $715M ICRR deep dive, Cameroon $163M ICRR deep dive (impact evaluation: PBF not statistically significant vs unconditional transfers), MS Equilibrium cycle diagram, Missing Counterfactual box, 14-country annex with all project tables, six-country single-project addendum (total: 20 countries, 0% S+).

↓  Download Full Paper (PDF)

The Bottom Line

The Health Zero Club documents the second major pattern of sustained underperformance in the World Bank’s Africa portfolio. Fourteen countries, 55 projects, $3.0 billion committed, zero percent Satisfactory. The Bank’s own Human Capital Index does not reveal gains that are visibly larger than regional trends. The Global Fund’s own OIG confirms both institutions struggle in the same environments. The findings are consistent with IEG’s own 2018 evaluation of health services, which found that expanding access was easier than improving quality — a decade ago.

The evidence points away from country characteristics alone and toward the interaction between institutional capacity, implementation discipline, and project design as the determinants of whether development finance produces its intended outcomes. Moderately Satisfactory is the equilibrium: not failure, not success — but institutionally acceptable, pipeline-sustaining, and repeated.

The MTI Zero Club tested the DPF instrument. The Health Zero Club tests the investment project. Both fail in the same countries. The instrument is not the binding constraint.

Browse by Topic