AfDB (African Development Bank), ADB (Asian Development Bank), EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), EIB (European Investment Bank), IDB (Inter-American Development Bank), IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank. 2015. From Billions to Trillions: MDB Contributions to Financing for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

AfDB (African Development Bank), ADB (Asian Development Bank), AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank), EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), EIB (European Investment Bank), IDB (Inter-American Development Bank), IsDB (Islamic Development Bank), NDB (New Development Bank), and World Bank. 2018. Multilateral Development Banks’ Harmonized Framework for Additionality in Private Sector Operations. Washington, DC: World Bank.

ECG (Evaluation Cooperation Group). 2020. Additionality: A Stocktake and Discussion of MDB Approaches. Washington, DC: ECG.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2011. IFC Road Map FY12–14: Impact, Innovation, and Partnership. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2012. International Finance Corporation Access to Information Policy. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2015. IFC Strategy and Business Outlook FY16–18: Growing for Impact. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2016. IFC Strategy 3.0: IFC Strategic Vision—Making 60 Years of Experience Count. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2018. Implementation of IFC’s Revised Additionality Framework. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2019a. China Country Strategy 2020–24: Helping Secure China’s Next Transformation. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2019b. Guidance: Implementation of IFC’s Revised Additionality Framework: Tip Sheet for Investment Teams. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2019c. Strategy and Business Outlook Update FY20–FY22: Gearing Up to Deliver IFC 3.0 at Scale. Washington, DC: IFC.

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2020. International Finance Corporation Articles of Agreement. Washington, DC: IFC. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d057dbd5-4b02-40f8-8065-9e6315c5a9aa/2020-IFC-AoA-English.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=n7H2n-h.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. Paris: OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf.

World Bank. 2008. Independent Evaluation of IFC’s Development Results 2008: IFC’s Additionality in Supporting Private Sector Development. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2011. Assessing IFC’s Poverty Focus and Results. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2012. China—Country Partnership Strategy for the Period FY2013–FY2016. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2015. IFC’s Additionality: IEG Category I Learning Product (Internal). Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2017. The International Finance Corporation’s Approach to Engaging Clients for Increased Development Impact. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2018. Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Development: World Bank Group Capital Package Proposal. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2019. China—Country Partnership Framework for the Period FY2020–2025. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2022. International Finance Corporation Additionality in Middle-Income Countries. Approach Paper. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

1 The term development finance institutions encompasses bilateral and multilateral donors. The term multilateral development banks refers exclusively to multilateral finance institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, among others. Bilateral donors include agencies such as Norfund and British International Investment.

1 According to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the relevance criterion for evaluation answers the question, “Is the intervention doing the right things?” by evidencing “the extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change” (OECD, 2019, p. 7).

2 The Anticipated Impact Measurement and Monitoring system allows the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to define, measure, and monitor the development impact of each project. The Anticipated Impact Measurement and Monitoring system is integrated into IFC’s operations, allowing development impact considerations to be weighed against a range of strategic objectives, including volume, financial return, risk, and thematic priorities (https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/development+impact/aimm).

3 Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) deep dive: additionality of IFC’s financial products (summarized in appendix F).

4 The World Bank Group capital increase document states: “[Upper-middle-income countries] provide IFC lower expenses and better return on capital than the IFC average and can offset underperformance in less financially sustainable environments, such as in [fragile and conflict-affected situations] and low-income [International Development Association] countries” (World Bank 2018, 12). This document also states that, for upper-middle-income countries above graduation discussion income, “IFC commits to apply rigorous additionality assessment for its investments, and aims to focus on global public goods, frontier regions, capital markets, and south-south partnerships” (World Bank 2018, 16).

5 Differences among sectors discussed in this paragraph are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

6 Based on investment projects evaluated during 2011–21.

7 The IEG recognizes that IFC management has committed to additionality principles only at the project level. This evaluation’s added lenses of country and sector level are applied to add to learning from IFC’s experience and build on existing IFC practices observed during the evaluation. However, the intent is purely learning—there is no accountability aspect of this coverage.

8 In a review of the nine country strategies for case study countries and an additional six sector deep dives, the IEG found that the treatment of IFC’s additionality ranged from very insightful to absent. IFC, like most multilateral development banks, generally does not discuss additionality in its strategic documents.

1 In Expanded Project Supervision Reports and Evaluative Notes (EvNotes), projects are rated for additionality on a scale that includes excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Projects receiving the first two ratings are considered “above the line”—that is, successful. Projects receiving the second two ratings are considered “below the line”—that is, unsuccessful.

2 Expanded Project Supervision Reports guidance states that, for additionality to be rated satisfactory, both of the following criteria must be met: (i) all important aspects of claimed additionality were borne out or there were unforeseen ways in which the IFC was additional, and (ii) there were no areas where IFC made a negative contribution. Where IFC has not fully realized all aspects of claimed additionality, for a satisfactory rating, the Expanded Project Supervision Report should present evidence as to why the deficiencies are not deemed important in retrospect.

3 In terms of loan income or equity returns.

4 All figures in this paragraph result from IEG’s analysis of the portfolio of evaluated IFC investment services projects.

1 There are also cases where the Inter-American Development Bank mobilized IFC investment for a project, but those would not be claimed by the IFC or validated by the IEG as IFC mobilization additionality.