1 / 23

Measuring development results in IFC

Measuring development results in IFC. Evaluation Cooperation Group Washington, DC – June 6, 2007 Roland Michelitsch, Manager Development Effectiveness Unit, IFC. Why development results matter. IFC’s mission, purpose, articles Commitment by IFC management

timothy-hanson
Télécharger la présentation

Measuring development results in IFC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring development results in IFC Evaluation Cooperation Group Washington, DC – June 6, 2007 Roland Michelitsch, Manager Development Effectiveness Unit, IFC

  2. Why development results matter • IFC’s mission, purpose, articles • Commitment by IFC management • Increasing demand from the Board and other stakeholders • Commitment to report publicly • Continuously improve results: “What gets measured – gets done”

  3. Assessing the impact of IFC activities How IFC/WBG helps to improve the investment climate and to reduce poverty & improve lives Investment Operations Demonstration Effects Improved Living Standards and Reduced Poverty Sustainable Private Investment Sustainable PSD Economic Growth Jobs, lower-cost or better goods & services (Sometimes directly for the poor) Advisory Services Improved Business Climate

  4. IFC’S REPORTING ON DE Draw on past experience to inform new operations Disclosed: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INVESTMENT (SPI) SUPERVISION (DOTS, PSR, XPSR) STRUCTURING (Legal Agreement) BOARD REPORT Development effectiveness: Feedback-loop EARLY REVIEW (PDS-ER) IFCInvestment Project Cycle Similar for Advisory Services INVESTMENT REVIEW (PDS-IR)

  5. Tracking results • Investments and Advisory Services: Systematic, throughout the project cycle • Specify clear objectives up-front • Standardizing indicators, improving methods • Continuous tracking • Results feed into performance evaluations: Corporate  departmental  individual Ultimately  Better results

  6. Hierarchy of measures Market test or control group (with vs. w/o) Before-after Reach Funds disbursed

  7. Assessing investment project’s development impact: by stakeholders Producers of Government, Taxpayer Customers Complementary Products Project Company (financiers) Neighbors & Environment Competitors New Entrants Employees Suppliers

  8. Financial performance  FRR > WACC Economic performance  ERR > 10%, + qualitative aspects Social & Environmental  Compliance with performance IFC’s safeguards Private sector  Positive impact on development investment climate Development outcome framework: Investments Project level 4 indicators & satisfactory success standards (project finance example)

  9. Measures for investments: Standard framework – aligned with ECG Good Practice Standards

  10. Measuring: Reach Investments - last year’s reach: • 7.7M sub-loans to MSMEs for $52B • 2.4M patients, 320,000 students • Power: 12M, water: 9M customers • Last 10 years: 80M phone connections • Oil, Gas, Mining, Chemicals: $4.5B gov’t revenues, $1.8B local suppliers, 50,000 jobs, 85% with community development programs spent $218M

  11. Measuring: Before-After Investments: MSME sub-loans from 68 FIs with consecutive data (27 micro, 41 SME): 2004 2005 Growth Number 1.1M 1.6M 40% Volume $13.0B $17.2B 32% [Forthcoming] IEG finding: Better results when investments combined with advisory services

  12. Challenges • Comparisons • Success rates • Benchmarking institutions • Contemporaneous assessment • Aggregation

  13. Challenge: Comparison Which institution performs best? Success rates • World Bank: • 75% for “outcome” (now > 80%) • EBRD: • 75% for “transition impact” (now > 80%) • 57% for “overall performance” (lower mainly due to financial performance) • IFC: • Investments: 60%for “development outcome”

  14. Success? What’s the benchmark?

  15. Challenge: Benchmarking organizations • 2005: 2nd ECG benchmarking review: GPS for private sector investment operations • 2006: ECG comparison – advisory services • 2007 “IFI Comparison”: Investments and advisory services • Summary: Comparing systems, results not comparable

  16. Challenge: Contempo-raneous assessment Mature Early Immature

  17. Challenge: Aggregation • IFC’s development results: • Development outcome? • 59% success rate (unweighted average) • 67% success rate (volume-weighted) • Median: FRR 9.2% ERR 12.2% • Aggregate: FRR 7.9% ERR 12.9% • On $17.3B investment (15% IFC, 16% cofinanciers) Net benefits (real): Financiers Others Total Undiscounted $9.6B $6.6B $ 16B Discounted at 5% $2.8B $5.1B $ 8B Discounted at 10% -$1.6B $4.1B $2.5B Data: IFC’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)

  18. Some emerging patterns

  19. For IFC projects: Close correlation between financial and development results

  20. Better development results with larger investments

  21. Ex-ante measures: “Frontier” activities

  22. Better development results where investment climates improve

  23. Development results measurement Summary: • Standard framework to assess project-level results • Consistent tracking throughout the project cycle • Supplemented by in-depth evaluations • Development results considered in corporate, departmental and individual performance evaluations

More Related