Independent evaluation of IFC's development results 2008 :
[Book]
IFC's additionality in supporting private sector development /
Independent Evaluation Group.
Washington, D.C. :
International Finance Corp.,
2008.
1 online resource (xliii, 76 pages) :
illustrations
"This report was prepared by a team led by Dan Crabtree ..."--Page xi.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 75-76).
Abbreviations; Definitions of Evaluation Terms; Acknowledgments; Foreword; Avant-propos; Prólogo; Executive Summary; Résumé analytique; Resumen ejecutivo; IFC Management Response to IEG-IFC; Chairperson's Summary: Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE); 1 Development Results of IFC-Supported Projects; Box 1.1 Evaluation System for IFC Investment Operations; Box 1.2 Examples of Projects with High and Low Development Outcome Ratings; Figure 1.1 IFC Investment Operations, by Region, 2002-07; Figure 1.2 IFC Investment Operations, by Sector, 2002-07.
Box 1.7 Examples of Successful and Unsuccessful Advisory Services Operations2 IFC Additionality; Box 2.1 Definitions of Additionality among Other Multilateral Development Institutions; Box 2.2 Evaluation of IFC's Role and Contribution in a Project; Box 2.3 Good Practice Standards for MDB Additionality Rating in Private Sector Operations; Table 2.1 Different Types of Potential Additionality; Table 2.2 Identifying and Judging Additionality Quality; Figure 2.1 IFC's Identified Additionality Has Been Mostly Financial in Nature; Table 2.3 Similarities and Differences between Additionality Metrics.
Figure 1.10 Project Development Results, by Region, 2003-07Figure 1.11 Environmental and Social Effects Performance, by Region, 2005-07; Figure 1.12 Project Development Results, by Sector, 2005-07; Figure 1.13 Project Development Results, by Instrument, 1996-2007 (three-year rolling average); Box 1.4 IFC Work Quality Rating; Table 1.1 Market Conditions Contributed to Better Project Results; Figure 1.14 Conducive Business Environments in Most Regions, Africa Still High Risk; Figure 1.15 Robust Private Investment in Most Regions, Lagging in Africa.
Figure 1.16 Changes in Country Business-Climate RiskTable 1.2 Strong Supervision and Administration Quality Can Mitigate High Intrinsic Risk; Table 1.3 Work Quality and Development Outcomes, by Region; Figure 1.17 Sector Choices; Figure 1.18 Sponsor Quality and Specific Project Characteristics; Table 1.4 Patterns in Key Results Drivers; Box 1.5 Evaluation System for Advisory Services Operations; Figure 1.19 IFC Work Quality; Box 1.6 Development Effectiveness Rating; Figure 1.20 Advisory Services Results, by Business Line; Figure 1.21 Advisory Services Results, by Region.
Figure 1.3 Project Development Results, 1996-2007 (three-year rolling average)Figure 1.4 Project Development Results, 1996-2007 (year-on-year average); Figure 1.5 IFC Investment Return, by Instrument (three-year rolling average); Box 1.3 IFC Investment Outcome Rating; Figure 1.6 Project Development Results, by Subindicator (three-year rolling average); Figure 1.7 IFC Did Not Generally Support Projects Where There Was a Tradeoff between Project Development Results and IFC Profitability; Figure 1.8 Project Development Results, by Investment Size; Figure 1.9 Average IFC Project Size, by Region.
0
8
8
8
8
This years Independent Evaluation of IFC's Development Results (IEDR) review the finding related to 174 IFC-Supported investment operations that reached early operating maturity during 2005-07. It also includes preliminary results for IFC's advisory services, based on a pilot review of 293 operations completed during 2004-06. As a second theme, the report provides a first look by IEG at IFC's additionally (or unique contribution) in its investment and advisory services operations.
Independent evaluation of IFC's development results 2008.
0821375938
IFC's additionality in supporting private sector development