Results and Performance of the World Bank Group 2022
Glossary of World Bank Group Ratings
World Bank Ratings
Projects
- Outcome. The outcome rating is derived from relevance, efficacy (the extent of achievement of objectives), and efficiency. This criterion is rated on a six-point scale: highly satisfactory, satisfactory, moderately satisfactory, moderately unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, highly unsatisfactory.
- Bank performance. The Bank performance rating is derived from two subratings, quality at entry and quality of supervision. This criterion is rated on a six-point scale: highly satisfactory, satisfactory, moderately satisfactory, moderately unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, highly unsatisfactory.
Country Programs
- Development outcome. The development outcome rating is derived from the extent of achievement of the Country Partnership Framework (CPF) objectives, hence the use of “CPF objectives/development outcomes” in this Results and Performance of the World Bank Group. Individual CPF objectives are rated on a five-point scale: achieved, mostly achieved, partially achieved, not achieved, not verified. Development outcome is rated on a six-point scale: highly satisfactory, satisfactory, moderately satisfactory, moderately unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, highly unsatisfactory.
- World Bank Group performance. This rating is derived from the overall performance of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: superior, good, fair, poor.
International Finance Corporation Ratings
Investment Projects
- Development outcome. The project’s development outcome is measured across four indicators: project business performance, economic sustainability, environmental and social effects, and private sector development. This criterion is rated on a six-point scale: highly successful, successful, mostly successful, mostly unsuccessful, unsuccessful, highly unsuccessful. Each indicator of development outcome is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly satisfactory, and unsatisfactory.
- IFC’s role and contribution (until calendar year 2015 Expanded Project Supervision Report program). This rating assesses how well the International Finance Corporation fulfilled this developmental role based on three operating principles—additionality/special contribution principle, business principle, and catalytic principle—as well as IFC’s timeliness, efficiency, and client satisfaction; relevance within IFC’s country strategy; and governance and environment. This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.
- IFC’s investment outcome assesses the extent to which IFC has realized at the time of evaluation and expects to realize over the remaining life of the investment the loan income and/or equity returns that were expected at approval (four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory).
- IFC’s work quality assesses IFC’s operational performance, including in relation to environmental and social aspects, with respect to precommitment work in (i) screening, appraisal, and structuring, and (ii) its supervision and administration after project approval by the Board of Executive Directors and subsequent IFC investment commitment. This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory).
Advisory Services
- Development effectiveness is a synthesis of the following five dimensions: (i) strategic relevance, (ii) output achievement, (iii) outcome achievement, (iv) impact achievement, and (v) efficiency. This criterion is rated on a six-point scale: highly successful, successful, mostly successful, mostly unsuccessful, unsuccessful, highly unsuccessful.
- IFC role and contribution (starting fiscal year [FY]15) assesses the extent to which IFC added value or made a special contribution to the advisory services project. This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.
- IFC overall work quality assesses the extent to which services provided ensured quality at entry and supported effective implementation through appropriate supervision and execution toward the achievement of development objectives. The Independent Evaluation Group assesses IFC overall work quality by assessing and rating two dimensions: (i) project preparation and design and (ii) project implementation. This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Ratings
- Development outcome is the bottom-line assessment of the project’s results on the ground, as measured across four indicators: project business performance, economic sustainability, environmental and social effects, and foreign investment effects (starting in 2019) or contribution to private sector development (before 2019). Since FY20, developement has been rated on a six-point scale: highly successful, successful, mostly successful, mostly unsuccessful, unsuccessful, highly unsuccessful. Before FY20, a four-point scale was used: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.
- MIGA’s role and contribution assesses the benefits and value added that MIGA, as a development institution and member of the Bank Group, brings to the client, the project, or the political risk insurance industry. It is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.
- MIGA’s work quality addresses two aspects: (i) the quality of MIGA’s due diligence and underwriting processes, including of risk assessment and mitigation, and (ii) the quality of MIGA’s monitoring after the issuance of the MIGA guarantee. This criterion is rated on a four-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, partly unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory.