World Bank must demand accountability before and after lending

The World Bank was established to reduce poverty and promote shared prosperity. That mission remains as relevant today as ever. Yet in many developing countries, including Kenya, the gap between financing and development outcomes continues to widen. Without strict accountability, development loans risk becoming instruments of political convenience rather than tools of transformation.

In principle, the bank provides capital for essential public goods — schools, hospitals, roads, energy systems and water infrastructure. In practice, however, the chain between borrowing and delivery is often weakened by weak oversight, political interference and poor transparency. Funds are approved in Washington, disbursed through national treasuries, and then absorbed into systems where accountability is uneven at best. By the time projects reach the ground, traceability is often diluted.

Kenya presents a clear illustration of this challenge. Public debt has risen sharply in the past decade, with debt servicing now consuming a significant share of ordinary revenue. Yet development outcomes have not always matched the scale of borrowing. Auditor-General reports continue to highlight irregular procurement processes, unsupported expenditures and incomplete documentation across several government projects. These are not isolated administrative errors; they point to structural weaknesses in public financial management.

In infrastructure development, major road and rail projects have been completed, but concerns remain about inflated costs and procurement opacity. In some cases, contractors linked to politically connected networks have benefited disproportionately, raising questions about value for money. Similar concerns have been raised in the energy and water sectors, where project delays and cost overruns persist despite sustained external financing.

The health sector provides another example. During the COVID-19 response period, emergency funds — including those supported by international partners — were subject to intense scrutiny. Civil society groups and oversight bodies flagged procurement irregularities and inconsistencies in expenditure reporting. Although investigations followed, public confidence was weakened by the perception that emergency borrowing outpaced institutional accountability.

These patterns are not unique to Kenya. Across Africa, the consequences of weak oversight are visible. Zambia’s debt crisis, driven in part by aggressive infrastructure borrowing, culminated in default and restructuring, with high social costs. Mozambique’s hidden debt scandal revealed how undisclosed state-backed loans can bypass parliamentary oversight and burden citizens with obligations they never approved. Uganda has also faced recurring concerns over inflated contracts and compensation disputes in large infrastructure projects. The lesson is consistent: Where transparency is weak, borrowing becomes vulnerable to misuse.

It is in this context that the World Bank and other multilateral lenders must adopt a more hawkish stance on accountability. Lending cannot be treated as a purely technical exercise of project appraisal and disbursement. It must include rigorous political economy analysis, continuous monitoring, and enforceable conditions that follow funds from approval to implementation.

One persistent weakness is the limited visibility of funding sources at the point of delivery. In Kenya, governments often launch projects without clearly stating whether they are financed through domestic revenue or external borrowing. This creates a political distortion. Leaders can claim ownership of development outcomes while obscuring the debt burden behind them. Over time, this erodes democratic accountability because citizens cannot accurately link spending decisions to long-term repayment obligations.

There is therefore a strong case for mandatory disclosure. Every publicly funded project financed through World Bank lending should be clearly labelled as such at the implementation level — on-site signage, public communication and official documentation. Citizens should know when they are walking into a hospital, school or road financed by borrowed money. Without that clarity, fiscal responsibility is weakened and political credit is misallocated.

This issue is particularly visible in youth-oriented initiatives such as the Nyota Fund. Presented as an empowerment programme, its financing structure and disbursement mechanisms have raised questions about transparency and sustainability. Where external borrowing underpins such programmes, full disclosure is essential. Otherwise, debt is disguised as political generosity, while repayment is deferred to a future generation that had no say in the decision.

The method of disbursement also matters. Direct cash transfers without structured training, mentorship or enterprise support risk becoming inefficient and politically exploitable. Not every recipient is immediately positioned to convert capital into a sustainable enterprise. Without accompanying capacity-building, funds can be quickly consumed, leaving limited long-term impact while the debt obligation remains intact.

Kenya’s broader fiscal indicators reinforce the need for caution. Rising interest payments, pressure on the shilling, and constrained development spending all point to tightening fiscal space. In such an environment, every borrowed shilling must be demonstrably traceable to measurable outcomes. Anything less deepens fiscal vulnerability.

The World Bank’s accountability framework must therefore move beyond procedural compliance. Real-time project tracking, independent verification, and outcome-based evaluation should be standard, not exceptional. Where misuse or diversion is detected, consequences must be immediate and visible. Soft reporting without enforcement only encourages repetition of the same governance failures.

Equally important is coordination with domestic oversight institutions. Kenya’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and Office of the Auditor-General must be integrated into enforcement pathways when irregularities involve externally financed projects. International lenders should not operate parallel accountability systems that end at reporting. They must ensure follow-through.

Critics often argue that stronger conditionality undermines sovereignty. Yet sovereignty cannot be selectively invoked to avoid scrutiny while accepting external debt. Borrowing creates obligations not only to lenders but also to citizens, who ultimately bear them through taxation and reduced public services. Accountability is not interference; it is protection of the public interest.

Ultimately, development finance must not become a vehicle for political signalling. Roads, hospitals and schools built on borrowed funds should serve communities first, not electoral narratives. Without strict oversight, debt risks entrenching the very inequalities it is meant to reduce.

If the World Bank is to remain true to its mandate, it must insist that every dollar borrowed is visible, traceable and accountable from disbursement to impact. For countries like Kenya, where fiscal pressures and governance challenges intersect, this is not optional. It is essential for ensuring that development finance genuinely serves the poor rather than the powerful.

Lister Nyaringo is a Kenyan public affairs commentator and governance advocate residing in Washington, US.