RECOMMENDATION 4: Relevant WBG Management should provide guidance and quality control so that every project documents for WBG projects targeting SMEs will:
a) Define the group of firms to benefit by measurable criteria such as number of employees and annual revenues;
b) Justify the definition of the beneficiary group targeted (which could be a subset of SMEs) based on country-specific evidence that this group suffers from size-specific market failures or constraints.
c) Specify and wherever appropriate embed in legal provisions the mechanism to reach the targeted group;
d) Include in its results framework and M&E framework indicators of the impact of the project on the targeted group and on the constraints or market failures justifying the project.
e) Projects that describe themselves as targeting benefits to SMEs should reflect this approach. In addition, these projects should be coded accurately with regard to whether or not their benefits are in fact predominantly or exclusively available to SMEs. Coding systems and practices should be reviewed and modified to assure that targeted SME projects are correctly coded, to reduce "false positives" and "false negatives".
Selectivity is required for both efficacy of targeting and its efficiency. The definition of SMEs (both the "ceiling" and the "floor") establishes projects' relevance to development objectives and differentiates some firms from others based on criteria of employment, sales and assets. IFC and MIGA's global definitions appear ill-tuned to many local contexts, while the Bank's lack of any institutional definition can lead to project-specific definitions not firmly linked to the underlying rationale for the assistance offered. In addition, currently, only a minority of projects defines SME (who is eligible for benefits) and fewer still apply that definition through their provisions. A minority identifies the market or policy failure they are seeking to address and a smaller minority provides a solid rationale for how the project will ameliorate that failure. Limited relevant information on portfolio performance makes it difficult to learn from experience or even to establish the existence of additionality of WBG interventions.
IEG's review of project coding suggests a high degree of imprecision in coding projects, including a higher percentage of "false positives" in IFC and "false negatives" in the World Bank.
WBG: Agree. Management agrees with the overall thrust of IEG's recommendations. Most of the detailed recommendations repeat previous recommendations. Thus Management comments provided on the related recommendations are also relevant in this case.
The newly established Global Practices will be accountable for enhancing guidance and quality control for SMEs work.
Coding for SME support will be reviewed as necessary. The forthcoming Guidance Note for Financial Intermediary Financing will also be useful in improving the design and consistency of TSME activities where they involve such financing arrangements.
IFC will continue to strengthen the quality of board and legal documents and will provide guidance to staff on (i) confirming in board papers where the standard definition of SME is being used or an alternative is being used (ii) strengthening the justification for targeting SMEs in Board papers and (iii) including, where appropriate, definitions and provisions in legal documents pertaining to the application of funds for SME on-lending. Regarding the justification for targeting SMEs, it should be noted that IFC's ability to provide evidence on market failures and financing gaps is dependent on the quality of data and analysis undertaken elsewhere, something which will only improve over time.
IFC will continue to improve its mechanism for flagging MSME projects to improve data quality and relevance, recognizing however that the MSME flag for IFC differs from the IEG definition in purpose and composition.
MIGA will strengthen the quality of Board and legal documents and will provide guidance to staff on: the standard definition of SME is being used or an alternative is being used; strengthening the justification for targeting SMEs in Board papers; and, where appropriate, including definitions and provisions in legal documents pertaining to the application of funds to for SME on-lending.
Action 4F [MIGA]: Include an SME indicator (i.e. #SMEs supported) in the Development Effectiveness Indicator System (DEIS) sheet of the Contract of Guarantee for relevant Financial Sector projects
Indicator: Number of SMEs supported
Baseline: No SME indicator in DEIS currently
Target: SME indicator included in the DEIS sheet of the Contract of Guarantee for applicable Financial Sector projects
Action 4F: [MIGA]: Include an SME indicator (i.e. #SMEs supported) in the Development Effectiveness Indicator System (DEIS) sheet of the Contract of Guarantee for relevant Financial Sector projects
Indicator: Number of SMEs supported through Financial Sector projects
Baseline: No SME indicator for Financial Sector projects in DEIS currently
Target: SME indicator included in the DEIS sheet of the Contract of Guarantee for applicable Financial Sector projects. Tip sheet developed to guide MIGA Staff for defining SMEs.
Action 4G [MIGA]: MIGA is reviewing options and will revert by FY15-end
As noted by MIGA, evidence on fulfillment of this action will be submitted at the end of FY17. Until then, IEG lacks evidence of fulfillment.
MIGA will provide an update in FY17, as indicated in the Management Action Plan. MIGA's Development Efffectivness Indicator System (DEIS) includes an indicator for People, Micro Enterprises and SMEs reached with financial services”. MIGA has been collecting annual data from applicable clients and contributing to the indicator in the WBG Corporate Scorecard.
MIGA has provided IEG with no evidence on any action it may have taken toward the implementation of this action item.