Scoring data for Infrastructure projects funded by World Bank and Chinese financial institutions
Description
This dataset pertains specifically to projects funded by various Chinese institutions, such as China Exim Bank, CBD (China development bank), within the geopolitical context of Sri Lanka. A total of 68 infrastructure projects are examined for the years starting from 2013 till 2020. The selection of the starting year is tied to the initiation of BRI in 2013 (Chatzky and Mcbride, 2020). The conclusion year is defined by the deadline of projects that remained unfinished at the time of the last data update. The projects are evaluated and ranked based on a rubric with a clear and structured framework. The rubric considers effectiveness, outcome, efficiency, and impact as key criteria, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of each project's performance. Projects are ranked based on their overall scores, with the highest-scoring projects ranked at the top. To achieve a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure projects, our study includes a scoring rubric that benchmarks projects sponsored by the WB and Chinese financial institutions in Sri Lanka. There are five main criteria for evaluation: implementation duration, cost efficiency, economic impact, impact on the targeted population, and project opacity. Each criterion is scored using specific, well-defined metrics to provide comprehensive coverage. To ensure adherence to timelines, we measure the implementation duration by comparing the actual duration of the project against the approved schedule. The relationship between the actual expenditure and the initially approved budgets is an indication of cost and financial management efficiency. The investment-to-GDP ratio assesses the economic impact, demonstrating the benefits the project provides to the wider economy. The targeted population reveals the impact, both positive and negative, and hence appropriately represents the social outcome. Finally, we judge project opacity based on criteria like allegations of bribery, the posting of audit reports, the accuracy of reported data, and the efficient utilization of funds. The chosen methodology aligns with the work done by Shields et al. (2003) and by Liu et al. (2021).
Files
Steps to reproduce
The projects are assessed as follows: First assessment is based on the approved and revised or actual duration, and the amount approved and amount spent, when there is no alteration in the implementation duration and approved financial disbursements, a score of 30 is allocated. Moreover, to further evaluate the duration and funding, the difference between approved and revised or actual values is calculated and divided by the original approved amount to account for the level of relative variation. If the revised duration is shorter than its original one, a score of 15 is designated. Otherwise, as discontinued and long-term projects tend to be poorly rated (Bulman et al., 2015), a score of zero is designated in case of extension in project implementation, discontinuation or missing information. Additionally, cases where additional financing is needed a score of 15 is allocated. Also, a score of zero is assigned for projects with a final amount spent less than the approved amount and in case of loan cancelation. Secondarily, the ratio of investment to the average GDP is calculated. Projects with a ratio that surpasses the average value of all ratios, a score of 30 is assigned. Conversely, if the project's ratio falls below the average value, a score of 0 is ascribed. Thirdly, the projects are examined based on their impact on affected population. Projects exhibiting a positive impact like the creation of job opportunities, enhanced use of resource, environmental protection, provision of education, health services and other positive externalities, are conferred a score of 30, whereas projects concurrently manifesting both positive and negative impacts are attributed a score of 15. Alternatively, projects demonstrating solely a negative impact such as displacement of residents, loss of natural habitat, environmental damages, traffic congestion, pollution and other similar negative externalities, are apportioned a score of zero. Furthermore, the flow type of the projects is used as a dummy variable and analyzed as follows: in cases where the flow type is a loan, a value of one is assigned and a value of zero otherwise. Finally, the evaluation of the outcomes of the projects is conducted by employing an opacity benchmark. In this context, projects involving any allegations of bribery warrant the assignment of a score of zero. Conversely, active projects free from accusations of bribery are assigned a score of 7.5. The public availability of audit reports results in a score of an additional 7.5, while the absence of such reports results in a score of zero. Also, if the provided data demonstrates accuracy, an additional score of 7.5 is bestowed; conversely, inaccuracies result in a score of zero. If the funds are being used effectively the project is also assigned a score of 7.5, otherwise it is given a score of zero.