世界银行 -规模、风险、复杂性：是什么决定了发展融资项目的成败 Volume,Risk,Complexity What Makes Development Finance Projects Succeed or Fail

ECONTR

Makeyourpulblicationsvisible.

AServiceof

Leibniz-Informationszentrum

wirtschaft

frCnmic

BW·eibni·.·nf·rm·ati·ncentre

Eilers,Yota;Kluve,Jochen;Langbein,Jörg;Reiners,Lennart

WorkingPaper

Volume,Risk,Complexity:WhatMakesDevelopment

FinanceProjectsSucceedorFail?

IZADiscussionPapers,No.16691

ProvidedinCooperationwith:

IZA–InstituteofLaborEconomics

SuggestedCitation:Eilers,Yota;Kluve,Jochen;Langbein,Jörg;Reiners,Lennart(2023):Volume,Risk,

Complexity:WhatMakesDevelopmentFinanceProjectsSucceedorFail?,IZADiscussionPapers,No.16691,InstituteofLaborEconomics(IZA),Bonn

ThisVersionisavailableat:

/10419/282818

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:

DieDokumenteaufEconStordürfenzueigenenwissenschaftlichenZweckenundzumPrivatgebrauchgespeichertundkopiertwerden.

SiedürfendieDokumentenichtfüröffentlicheoderkommerzielleZweckevervielfältigen,öffentlichausstellen,öffentlichzugänglichmachen,vertreibenoderanderweitignutzen.

SoferndieVerfasserdieDokumenteunterOpen-Content-Lizenzen

(insbesondereCC-Lizenzen)zurVerfügunggestellthabensollten,

geltenabweichendvondiesenNutzungsbedingungendieinderdortgenanntenLizenzgewährtenNutzungsrechte.

Termsofuse:

DocumentsinEconStormaybesavedandcopiedforyourpersonalandscholarlypurposes.

Youarenottocopydocumentsforpublicorcommercialpurposes,toexhibitthedocumentspublicly,tomakethempubliclyavailableontheinternet,ortodistributeorotherwiseusethedocumentsinpublic.

IfthedocumentshavebeenmadeavailableunderanOpenContentLicence(especiallyCreativeCommonsLicences),youmayexercisefurtherusagerightsasspecifiedintheindicatedlicence.

Mitgliedder

WWW.ECONTR.EU

DISCUSSIONPAPERSERIES

IZADPNo.16691

Volume,Risk,Complexity:

WhatMakesDevelopmentFinanceProjectsSucceedorFail?

YotaEilers

JochenKluve

JörgLangbeinLennartReiners

DECEMBER2023

ZAnstitute

ofLaborEconomics

InitiatedbyDeutschepostFoundation

DISCUSSIONPAPERSERIES

IZADPNo.16691

Volume,Risk,Complexity:

WhatMakesDevelopmentFinanceProjectsSucceedorFail?

YotaEilers

UniversityofOxford

JochenKluve

Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,KfWDevelopmentBankandIZA

JörgLangbein

KfWDevelopmentBank

LennartReiners

AsianDevelopmentBank

DECEMBER2023

Anyopinionsexpressedinthispaperarethoseoftheauthor(s)andnotthoseofIZA.Researchpublishedinthisseriesmayincludeviewsonpolicy,butIZAtakesnoinstitutionalpolicypositions.TheIZAresearchnetworkiscommittedtotheIZAGuidingPrinciplesofResearchIntegrity.

TheIZAInstituteofLaborEconomicsisanindependenteconomicresearchinstitutethatconductsresearchinlaboreconomicsandoffersevidence-basedpolicyadviceonlabormarketissues.SupportedbytheDeutschePostFoundation,IZArunstheworld’slargestnetworkofeconomists,whoseresearchaimstoprovideanswerstothegloballabormarketchallengesofourtime.Ourkeyobjectiveistobuildbridgesbetweenacademicresearch,policymakersandsociety.

IZADiscussionPapersoftenrepresentpreliminaryworkandarecirculatedtoencouragediscussion.Citationofsuchapapershouldaccountforitsprovisionalcharacter.Arevisedversionmaybeavailabledirectlyfromtheauthor.

ISSN:2365-9793

IZA–InstituteofLaborEconomics

Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße5–953113Bonn,Germany

Phone:+49-228-3894-0

Email:publications@

IZADPNo.16691DECEMBER2023

ABSTRACT

Volume,Risk,Complexity:

WhatMakesDevelopmentFinanceProjectsSucceedorFail?*

In2022,governmentsaroundtheworldcommittedUSD211bn.toofficialdevelopmentassistance.Despitethesehighcontributions,systematicassessmentsofthedeterminantsofsuccess—orfailure—ofdevelopmentaidprojectsremainlimited,particularlyforbilateraldevelopmentaid.Thispaperprovidessuchasystematic,quantitativeanalysis:weconstructauniquedatabasecovering5,608evaluationresults—successratings—forbilateraldevelopmentaidprojectsfinancedthroughoneofthebiggestglobaldonors,KfWDevelopmentBank.Detaileddataonprojectcharacteristicsallowustolinksuccessratingstofiveclustersofkeyexplanatoryfactorsalongtheentireprojectlife-cyleandcontext:(a)Intermsofprojectfinancing,wefindastatisticallysignificantpositiveassociationbetweenthefinancialbudgetvolumeoftheprojectanditssuccessratings,ceterisparibus.Second,concerningthe(b)projectstructure,thetypeofprojectpartner—government,privatesector,multilateralorganizations—showsnosignificantassociationwithprojectsuccess,suggestingthatprojectimplementationworksequallywellwithdifferentpartners.(c)Projectcomplexityasmeasuredbybothtechnicalcomplexityandlongerimplementationdurationexertsanegativeinfluenceonsuccessratings.Regarding(d)projectrisks,ahighlyrelevantandsignificantpredictorforlesssuccessfulprojectsistheshareofex-anteidentifiedrisksthateventuallymaterialized—suggestingthatprojectdesignscorrectlyidentifytherelevantrisksinadvance,butarenotabletomitigate(allof)themduringexecution.Finally,concerning(e)theprojectcontextthereissomeindicationthathigherGDPgrowthratesarepositivelyassociatedwithprojectsuccess.

JELClassification:C40,F35,O10,O19

Keywords:developmentfinance,OECDDACevaluationcriteria,meta

analysis

Correspondingauthor:

JochenKluve

Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin

SchoolofBusinessandEconomicsSpandauerStr.1

10178BerlinGermany

E-mail:jochen.kluve@hu-berlin.de

*WegratefullyacknowledgevaluablecommentsbyDavidCard,AndreasFuchs,KrisztinaKis-Katos,BernhardReinsberg,seminarparticipantsatUniversityofGöttingen,UniversityofToronto,theDigitalDevelopmentDialogue(3D)andKfWDevelopmentBank,aswellasconferenceparticipantsofthePovertyReduction,EquityandGrowthNetwork2022Kampala,theEuropeanPublicChoiceSociety2023,andtheGermanDevelopmentEconomicsConference2023Dresden.WethankMarlonKrippendorfforexcellentresearchassistance.TheviewsexpressedinthispaperarethoseoftheauthorsaloneanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsofKfW.

3

1Introduction

Today’sworldisshapedbyglobalchallengesincludingclimatechange,foodandwatershortages,risinginequality,andanincreasingnumberofconflicts.TheconsequencesofcrisesareoftenparticularlyfeltinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries(LMICs)thathavealimitedfinancialcapacitytosoftentheirimpact.Developmentfinancecanbeanimportantremedyandalargeandincreasingvolumeofofficialdevelopmentassis-tance(ODA)hasbeencommittedoverthelastdecade,reachingatotalofUSD211bn.in2022(

OECD

,

2023

).

Atthesametime,knowledgeontheoveralleffectivenessofsuchcommitmentshasremainedinconclusive,astheevidenceavailableisscarce(

Qian

,

2015

).Certainly,therehasbeenafundamentalandcriticaladvanceintheeconomicanalysisofdevelopmentinterventionsduetotheworkofNobellaureatesBanerjee,Duflo,andKremer,andacorrespondingsurgein(experimental)impactevaluations(e.g.

Olken

,

2020

).Theseproject-levelevaluationsarekeytounderstandingindividualprojecteffectiveness;andthebodyofevidenceproducedtodateisimpressive.Foracomplementingassess-mentoftheeffectsofdevelopmentassistanceefforts,however,thereisalsointerestinlookingatdevelopmentresultssystematicallyacrossprojecsandprojecttypes,acrosssectorsandcountries—inordertounderstandwhichimplementationfactors,programfeatures,andcontextualaspectsdetermine(ornot)successindeliveringintendedim-pacts.Thisisofrelevancegiventhebroadportfoliosoftypicallyhundredsofdevel-opmentprojectsthataresimultaneouslyimplementedinanyparticularLMIC.Onlymorerecently,studieshavetriedtoanalyzetheroleofcountry-aswellasproject-characteristicsondevelopmentoutcomesinmoredetail,mostlyusingdatafromtheWorldBankandtheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB),e.g.

Denizeretal.

(

2013

),whoinitiatedthislineofsystematicresearch,and

FeenyandVuong

(

2017

),

Ashtonetal.

(

2023

).

InthispaperweanalyzethesuccessdeterminantsofKfWDevelopmentBanks’projects.KfWmanagesGermany’sdevelopmentfinancecommitmentsonbehalfoftheGermanFederalGovernment,thesecondlargestODAdonorworldwideaftertheUS(OECD,2023).WithaportfoliospanningacrossalleconomicsectorsandmostLMICs,KfW’sengagementscopeiscomparabletothatoflargemultilateraldonors.Specifically,wecompileauniquedatabaseofKfWprojectevaluationsthatcomprises5,608individualsuccessratingsandthatisrepresentativeoftheinstitution’sentireportfolioacross96partnercountries.Theanalyticalsamplecomprisesthreetypesofdatasources:(i)keyvariablescodedfromthehardcopyevaluationreports,includingsystematicsuccessratingsusingtheOECD-DACcriteriainthefivedimensionsrelevance,effectiveness,efficiency,impact,andsustainability;(ii)KfWoperationalprojectdata;(iii)external

4

dataoneconomicindicators.Conceptually,thestructureoftheanalyticalsamplethuscorrespondstodataconstructedforquantitativemetaanalysis(e.g.

Cardetal.

,

2018

).Hence,ourempiricalanalysisusesmetaregressiontocorrelatesuccessratingswithahostofexplanatoryprojectinformationcoveringdetailsonprojectstructure,projectfinancing,projectcomplexity,projectrisks,andcontext.

Ourempiricalresultsprovideuswithfivemainsubstantiveconclusions.First,wefindastatisticallysignificantpositiveassociationbetweenprojectsuccessratingandfinancialvolume—especiallyforbudgetfunds,andforhighersharesofpartnercoun-trycontributions.Thisindicatesthatlargerdevelopmentfinanceprojectswithgreaterownershiparemoresuccessful.Second,severaldimensionsofprojectcomplexitydis-playastatisticallysignificantnegativecorrelationwithsuccessratings:longerprojectdurationsperse(notdelays),longertimespansbetweenmandate—i.e.commitmentoffunds—andsigningofthecontract,andtechnicallycomplexprojectdesignsareasso-ciatedwithalesssuccessfulrating.Whereasprojectdurationanddegreeoftechnicalcomplexityareoftendifficulttoadjust(inparticulare.g.ininfrastructureprojects),aprolongedtimespanbetweenmandateandcontractcouldthusserveasanearlyindi-catorofahigherriskofprojectfailure.

Third,projectriskassessmentisakeyfactorassociatedwithprojectsuccess.Priortothestartofeachproject,thepotentialprojectrisksareforecastbycategorizingtheirseverity,occurrenceprobabilityandmitigationchances.Ourresultsshowthatthehighertherateofeventualoccurrenceoftheseex-anteforecastrisks,thelowerthesuc-cessrating.Thisimpliesthatrisksarecorrectlyidentified,butaredifficulttomitigateand/orhavenotbeenmitigatedsufficientlyduringimplementation.Fourth,almostnoneofthecovariatesdescribingtheprojectstructureshowastatisticallysignificantcorrelationwithsuccessratings.Thisimplies,interalia,thatprojectimplementationworksequallywellwithdifferentpartnertypes,andwithavaryingnumberofin-stitutionsinvolved.Andfifth,ourresultsforthecontextualfactorsindicateaweakpositivecorrelationbetweenGDPgrowthratesandprojectsuccess,butnostatisticallysignificantroleofdemocracyorfragilityindicesonsuccessratings.

Inthedebateondevelopmentprojecteffectiveness,thesefindingsareparticularlyrel-evantbecausetheyimplythatmanyofthecharacteristicsthatmattermostforprojectsdeliveringontheirintendedimpactareundertheinfluenceofdonoragenciesandpart-ners:project(co-)financing,riskanticipationandriskmanagement,complexityofthedesign,andpartnerownershipandintegrationintheproject.Giventhatresearchhasfoundprojectcharacteristicstocorrelatesimilarlywithprojectsuccessacrossdifferentdonors(

Bulmanetal.

,

2017

;

Briggs

,

2020

),ourresultsareinformativeforthediversepanoramaofdonorinstitutionsaswellasrecipientcountries.

Ourpapercontributestotheliteratureinfourmainways.First,weconstructanovel

5

databasewithseveralkeyfeatures:bycodingmorethan30—partiallynew—covariatesdescribingprojectcharacteristicsacrosstheprojectlife-cycleweprovidethemostde-tailedprojectdatatodate,tothebestofourknowledge.Thesecovariates—e.g.partnertype,variousmeasuresofcomplexityandrisk—directlyaddresskeygapsidentifiedintheliteratureregardingqualityanddepthofmicro-levelinformation.1Second,thegranularityofthedependentvariableusingfivedimensionsofsuccessratings—andmeasuredinasystematicwayacrosscountries,sectors,andovertime—allowsustoidentifyrelevantvariationinprojectsuccess.Thisprovidesamorenuancedperspec-tiveontheachievementsofdevelopmentfinanceprojects,sincepreviousresearchhashadtofocusontheoverallprojectratingonly.Inaddition,wecaninvestigatehetero-geneouspatternsbysectorandregion.

Third,ourdataallowustocontrolfor,andprobe,evaluator-andevaluation-specificeffects.Relatedresearchpartiallyreliesonself-assignedratingsfromprojectleadersheadingtheproject(

Denizeretal.

,

2013

;

FeenyandVuong

,

2017

;

RommelandSchaudt

,

2020

;

Ashtonetal.

,

2023

).Incontrast,allsuccessratingsinourdataareassignedbyanindependentevaluationfunction,andwecanempiricallytesttheindependenceofevaluator/evaluationcharacteristicsandtheassignedsuccessratings.

Fourth,ourstudytakesanin-depthlookatbilateraldonorcontributions,complement-ingthesystematicanalysesofprojectsuccessdeterminantsformultilateralagencies(e.g.

Mubilaetal.

,

2000

;

Denizeretal.

,

2013

;

FeenyandVuong

,

2017

).2.Bilateralandmultilateraldevelopmentaidworkdifferentlyandthismay,inturn,alsoaffectprojectsuccess.Severalstudieshavedemonstratedthatbilateralaid,moreoftenthanmul-tilateralaid,isusedtoexertinfluenceovertherecipientcountry(e.g.

Dreheretal.

,

2022a

;

Fuchsetal.

,

2014

).Thiscouldaffecttheselectionofimplementedprojectsanditssuccessdeterminantsdifferentlyforbilateralthanformultilateralprojectsfortworeasons:First,bilateraldonorshaveastrongerinfluenceontheprojectandbettercon-troloverit,whichmightleadtocomparativelybettersuccessratings.Second,withthepoliticaldimensionplayingaroleinbilateraldevelopmentaid,theactualsuccessoftheprojectmaynotbeasimportantasitisforamultilateraldonor,whichmightleadtocomparativelyworsesuccessratings.

Inadditiontothesecorecontributions,thepaper—moregenerallyspeaking—isalsorelatedtotheliteraturediscussingtherelationshipbetweenindividualprojectorcoun-

1Forexample,ourvariablesrespondto

Bulmanetal.

(

2017

),whoarguethat“[t]hispointstotheim-portanceoffurtherworktounderstandthesourcesofthisvariation,forexample,bysystematicallymeasuringthecontributiontoprojectsuccessofprojectimplementingagencieswithinrecipientgov-ernments.",orto

Ashtonetal.

(

2023

)who,basedonarecentliteraturereview,concludethat“(...)thequalityandsuitabilityofprojectdesign,haverarelybeeninvestigated(...)"andthatexistingliteraturehasbeen“(...)concernedmainlywitheasilyobservablecharacteristicslikesize,duration,andsector".

2

Woodetal.

(

2020

)analyzeAustralianbilateralaid,acomparativelysmalldonor.

Honigetal.

(

2022

)compiledataincludingseveralbilateraldonorsandalsoKfW,butthescopeofprojectcharacteristicsisconsiderablysmallergiventhattheiranalysisfocusesonthebreadthofinformationacrossdonors.

6

trycharacteristicsandprojectsuccessindetail(e.g.

Chauvetetal.

,

2010

;

Kilby

,

2015

).Forexample,weprovideadditionalempiricalresultsinformingtheliteratureontheroleofimplementingagencies(

Shinetal.

,

2017

;

Winters

,

2019

;

MarchesiandMasi

,

2021

).Byaddingevidenceonapreviouslyunderstudieddonor,wealsoaddtothedis-cussiononthecomparabilityofsuccesscorrelatesacrossdonors(

Bulmanetal.

,

2017

;

Briggs

,

2020

).

ThenextsectionprovidesbackgroundinformationonbilateraldevelopmentfinanceandKfWDevelopmentBank.Section

3

describesthedataindetailandpresentsresultsfromdescriptiveandgraphicalanalyses.Section

4

delineatestheestimationstrategy,andsections

5

and

6

presentanddiscussthemetaregressionresultsandrobustness,respectively.Section

7

concludes.

2DevelopmentfinanceandprojectevaluationsatKfWDevelopmentBank

2.1Bilateraldevelopmentfinance

KfWDevelopmentBank3handlesthemajorityofGermany’sofficialFinancialCoop-eration(FC).In2022,forinstance,KfWcommittedEUR10.9bn.(USD11.5bn.)todevelopingcountriesaroundtheworld(

KfW

,

2022

),makingitoneofthelargestbilat-eraldonorsworldwide.ThefundsmainlystemfromtheGermanFederalMinistryforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(BMZ)andfinanceprojectsinAfrica,Asia,LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,andSouth-EasternEurope.Sector-wise,theseen-gagementsaddressallareasfromagriculturetowatersupply.Theinstitution’sbreadthofengagementiscomparabletothatoflargemultilateraldevelopmentfinanciers,butitsbilateralnaturemakesitaparticularinterestingcasetostudygiventhatbi-andmultilateralaidoperatedifferently(

Biscayeetal.

,

2017

;

Dreheretal.

,

2022b

;

Findley

etal.

,

2017

;

RommelandSchaudt

,

2020

).

FundscommittedbyKfWareimplementedviaprojectsthatcomprisededicatedin-vestments.Theyaredesignedjointlywithandimplementedbylocal—mostlypublic—partneragenciessuchaslineministries,withwhomfinancingagreementsarecon-cluded,attimestogetherwithinternationalco-financinginstitutions.Thisprocessen-tailsdefiningtheTheoryofChange(ToC),outliningtheresultsframeworkofthede-velopmentfinanceproject,includingtargetindicatorsforprojectperformance.Onceprojectsarecompleted,acompletionreportisconducted—summarizingtheproject’s

3KfWisaGermanstate-ownedinvestmentanddevelopmentbank.Itsnameoriginallycomesfrom"KreditanstaltfürWiederaufbau"—meaning"creditinstituteforreconstruction".

7

resultsfromtheperspectiveofKfWprojectmanagers.Forarepresentativesubsetofprojects,thisisfollowedbyanindependentex-postevaluationofprojectsuccess(orfailure),takingplaceapproximatelythreeyearsafterprojectcompletion.

2.2Projectevaluations

AtKfW,theindependentevaluationfunctionFCE(FinancialCooperationEvaluation)isresponsibleforcarryingoutprojectevaluations.Arandomsampleof50%oftheprojects,stratifiedbyninesectors,isdrawnfromallcompletedprojectsforeachyear.Thesampleis,hence,representativeforKfW’sentireFCportfolio.Allex-postevalua-tionsconductedatKfWadheretotheinternationallyestablishedOECD-DACcriteria.Thatis,eachevaluationsystematicallyassessesthefivecriteria(a)relevance,(b)ef-fectiveness,(c)efficiency,(d)impactand(e)sustainabilityofthegivenproject.4Eachcriterionisratedonadiscretescalefrom6(best)to1(worst),i.e.rangingfrom“verygood"to“highlyunsatisfactory".Eachevaluationalsoassignsanoverallsuccessratingwiththesamerange.5

Fromtheannualsampleofprojects,onethirdisevaluatedbyFCEstaff,onethirdbyexternalconsultants,andonethirdbysecondedcolleaguesfromKfW’soperationaldepartments.Thegovernanceofeverysingleevaluation,however,lieswithFCE.Thatis,(i)FCEsupervisesexternalconsultantsandsecondedcolleagues,(ii)allre-portsarepeer-reviewedinternallywithinFCE,and(iii)theabsenceofconflicts-of-interestisensured:Specifically,anypersoninvolvedintheevaluationprocessmustnothaveworkedontheprojectorwithintheresponsibledepartmentduringitsimple-mentation.Eachevaluationfollowsastructuredprocessentailingconceptualdesign,deskstudy,on-sitevisitand/orsupportfromalocalconsultant,andreportwriting.Summaryevaluationreports—withstandardizedtableofcontents—arepublishedonKfW’swebsite.

Eachevaluationthusconstitutesanexpertassessmentofprojectsuccessorfailure,fol-lowinganinternationallyestablishedmethodology.AnotherbenefitfromexclusivelyrelyingonDAC-criteriaisthatallprojectevaluationsareguidedbythesamenorma-tiveframework—independentofregionalorthematicfocus—addressingconcernsthatdevelopmentobjectivescannotbecomparedacrosssectors(

Denizeretal.

,

2013

;

Feeny

andVuong

,

2017

).Forthepurposeofourstudy,therefore,theuseofDAC-criteriapro-

4ThesefivecriteriaweredefinedbyOECD-DACinthe1990s.Asixthcriterion,“coherence",wasonlyaddedin2020,andthereforemostevaluationsinoursamplecoverfivecriteria.

5Ingeneral,theoverallratingiscalculatedastherounded,unweightedaverageofthefivecriteriaratings.Thereisonespecificexception,however:Ifoneormoreofthethreecriteriasustainability,effectivenessorimpactareratedas3orbelow,thentheoverallprojectcannotberatedhigherthan3,independentoftheratingsassignedtotheothercriteria.Thisparticularscenarioapplyingtheso-calledKnockOut-Criteriaconcerns37ofthe1,124projectevaluations,or3.3%ofoursample.

8

videsuswithalargesampleofindividualsuccessratingsthatweresystematicallyandconsistentlyassignedovertheentiresamplingperiod.

IncontrasttotheADBandWorldBank,KfW’sevaluationportfoliodoesnotincludeself-assessmentsfromoperationalstaff,anditisselectedonastrictlyrandombasis.Thus,ourdataarenotpronetoselectionbiases(

KilbyandMichaelowa

,

2019

),ortooverlyfavorableratingsassignedbyprojectmanagersthemselves(

Bulmanetal.

,

2017

;

Ashtonetal.

,

2023

).Still,evenwhenconductedbyaformallyindependentevaluationfunction,theautonomyofsuchbodiescanbecalledintoquestiongiventhattheyarebasedwithintheinstitution(

Denizeretal.

,

2013

).Whilethesamecritiquecould,inprinciple,betranslatedtoKfW,severalreasonsspeakagainstit:First,thedirectorofevaluationisrecruitedexternallyfromacademia,andreportsdirectlyandonlytotheexecutiveboard;second,evaluationresultsarepubliclyshared;third,thebroadsetofevaluators(FCEstaff,externalconsultants,secondedoperationalstaff)guaranteestheabsenceofconflicts-of-interest;fourth,FCE’smethodologyisreviewedbyanexternalbody,theGermaninstituteforDevelopmentEvaluation(DEval).Moreover,wecanempiricallytesttheindependenceofassignedratingsandevaluatorcharacteristicsanddiscussthisinadedicatedpartofsection

4

.

3Dataanddescriptiveanalysis

3.1Metasampleconstructionandsummarystatistics

ThesampleisconstructedfromallN=1,124evaluationsofdevelopmentfinanceprojectsthatFCEconductedbetween2007and2021,yieldingasampleofN=5,608observationsonprojectsuccessratings(fiveratingsperevaluation).Thisis,toourknowledge,themostextensiveanduptodatedatabaseonbilateralfinancialcoopera-tionevaluationsworldwidefromasingledonor.

Itcoversprojectsimplementedinatotalof96lowandmiddleincomepartnercountriesandisrepresentativeforKfW’sFCportfolio(cf.AppendixTable

A1

).Asevaluationsareconductedafterprojectcompletion,differentprojectdurationsimplythatoursam-pleeffectivelycontainsdevelopmentprojectsthatstartedasearlyas1990andaslateas2019.Eachofthe1,124developmentfinanceprojectsinthesamplehasauniqueID,allowingustomergesystemvariablesfromKfWdatabaseswithinformationcodedfromevaluationreports,coveringrichinformationonprojectcharacteristics(the“mi-cro"variables).Inaddition,wecombinethesedatawithexternalstatisticsoncontex-tualfactorsinthecountriesduringthetimeofprojectimplementation(the“macro"variables).Conceptually,theresultinganalyticalsamplecombinesthreetypesofdatasources—(i)keyvariablescodedfromthehardcopyevaluationreports,(ii)KfWop-

9

erationalprojectdatabases,(iii)externaldataoneconomicindicators—andthereforecorrespondstodataconstructedforquantitativemetaanalysis(e.g.

Cardetal.

,

2018

).

3.1.1Dependentvariable:Standardizedprojectsuccessratings

ThemainvariableofinterestistheindividualratingassignedforeachDAC-criterionona6-1scaleforagivenproject.Thisallowsustoutilizethegranularityofthefullsetofindividuallyassignedratingsinsteadofonlyrelyingontheoverallprojectrating.AppendixFigure

A1

displaystherespectivedistributionofeachDAC-ratinginthedataattheprojectevaluationlevel(N=1,124each).Themajorityofoverallsuccessratings(topleft)areeither“4"or“5",withmorethan400caseseach,whileonlyfewevaluationsrateprojectsinthemostsuccessfulcategory“6"(44projectsintotal).Theoverallshareofratingswith“2"and“3"amountsto19%,or204projects.Theoverallmeanratingis4.21.

Theremainingpanelsforthefiveindividualcriteriaindicateseveralpatterns:First,thedistributionsfor“effectiveness"and“impact"arerathersimilartotheoverallrating,eachwithanaverageratingof4.34.Second,“relevance"displaysthehighestshareofsuccessfulratingswith“5"and“6",andthusthehighestoverallmeanrating(4.85).Third,both“efficiency"and“sustainability"showslightlylesssuccessfulaveragerat-ings,attaining4.07and4.18,respectively.

Thecoreofouranalysisusesthepooledsampleoftheseindividualratings.Forrobust-nessandcomparabilitywiththerelatedliterature,wealsoconstructtwoadditionaloutcomevariables:i)Analternat