Evaluation of the Development Gateway

This 46-page study evaluates the Development Gateway, an internet portal supporting information and knowledge exchange about development issues. Carried out by personnel affiliated with the Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics as part of the Bretton Woods Project, the study is primarily based on a review of existing documentation (from the Development Gateway and external sources) coupled with analysis of the Development Gateway website (with a particular focus on the Topics and Country Gateway sections) and consultation with development professionals. In light of this analysis, evaluators find that the Gateway "presents a biased picture of development debates, lacks independence and is inefficient when compared with other similar initiatives."

Executive Summary

"The Development Gateway is an Internet portal that seeks to promote sustainable development and poverty reduction through knowledge and resource sharing. Initially conceived and designed by the World Bank, it commenced operations as an independent not-for-profit organisation in July 2001. However, its launch and operations have been dogged by controversy as civil society organisations have objected to the Gateway's links with the World Bank and its potential for disseminating the World Bank's vision of development at the expense of more diverse and pluralistic views. In particular, criticism has centred on the Topics and Country Gateway sections of the web site, as being ill-conceived and biased, leading to the further marginalisation of southern knowledge, and the crowding out of other knowledge
aggregators....

The key findings of the study corroborate the civil society criticisms in finding that the Development Gateway remains closely linked to the World Bank at both operational and strategic levels, that the information is predominantly from northern sources, that its operations are not transparent or accountable to civil society, and that it does not have any criteria or systems for measuring the impact of its services. More surprisingly, given the stature of the World Bank and the level of investment, there is no clear identification of who the beneficiaries
are and how they may be benefiting. The content is not comprehensive and it has a strong bias towards technological topics at the expense of social and political topics. Also, it is poorly organised and is not cost-effective in comparison with other existing Internet portals. In fact the other development portals, rather than being crowded out, are thriving precisely because the performance of the Gateway is so poor. As an example, the global civil society portal OneWorld has substantially more content, twice as much usage, and eight times as many partnerships as the Development Gateway, all achieved for about a quarter of the spending.

The Gateway has consumed more than $30 million of funding since its inception and is seeking another $40 million of public funding. This without having achieved many of the goals it set itself and with major question marks over its ability to deliver, as acknowledged, despite their limited scope, by the two evaluations of the Development Gateway undertaken or commissioned by the World Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department.

We urge a full, properly independent evaluation, expanding on the work in this study, before any more money is spent. In particular the evaluation should focus on the Topic and Country Gateway sections, and should explore the possibility of collaborating or integrating with other development portals or even scrapping these sections altogether. If these sections are found to be viable, there needs to be a comprehensive restructuring of the content to reduce the bias against social and political topics and to rationalise the taxonomy.

We also urge the Development Gateway to immediately diversify its Board of Directors, diversify its content managers, distance itself from the World Bank, improve transparency, and re-open dialogue with civil society and official development partners to redefine its mission and priorities. Only then may the Development Gateway gain the trust of those it attempts to target."