# **Annex 1 – Literature Review**

In Section 2 (What do we know so far?), we reviewed the literature of factors associated with aid effectiveness at the project level. All the studies identified in the systematic search are listed in Table A1.1. below. For the subset of studies more closely related to this one, we report further details in Table A1.2, including an overview of the population, the methods and variables in the studies reviewed on the determinants of developmentprojects success. The full reference of studies not included in the main text literature review can be found at the end of this Annex.

**_Table A1.1 Complete list of studies reviewed on the determinants of development-projects success_**

|**Reference**|**Included in**<br>**Literature**<br>**Review**|**Question of interest**|**Main findings**|
|---|---|---|---|
|Aga et al., 2016|No|What are the mechanisms that explain how leadership affects<br>NGO-led projects success in Ethiopia?|Results indicate that team building partially mediates the effect of transformational<br>leadership on project success.|
|Ahsan and Gunawan,<br>2010|No|What are the correlations between Asian Development Bank<br>project costs, delay and outcome ratings?|Most late projects experience cost underrun, which seems linked to poor performance.|
|Álvarez et al., 2012|Yes (Table<br>A1.2 and<br>Text)|What drives project disbursement performance at the Inter-<br>American Development Bank?|Most of the variance in IDB project disbursements is found within country. Project team<br>leader plays an important role in understanding project performance, although the effect<br>of the project team leader's location on disbursement performance has not been<br>constant over time. Project team leader characteristics related to experience or seniority<br>are not significantly associated with project performance.|
|Biscaye et al., 2017|No|Meta-analysis of the literature that empirically test the<br>associations between bilateral and multilateral aid flows and<br>various development outcomes at the country-level|The authors find no consistent evidence that either bilateral or multilateral aid is more<br>effective overall.|
|Blanc et al., 2016|Yes (Text<br>only)|Review the efficacy of existing World Bank monitoring systems<br>(ISRs) to provide warnings about the potential of an<br>investment project in the East Asia and Pacific region failing to<br>deliver its intended results|<br>Projects with lower ISR ratings have a higher risk of being rated unsatisfactory at exit. For<br>projects that do not have low ISR ratings, having at least three of six Bank monitoring<br>flags (project management, procurement, M&E, safeguards, counterpart funding and<br>financial management) rated as low is also predictive of an unsatisfactory IEG outcome<br>rating.|
|Blum, 2014|Yes (Table<br>A1.2 and<br>Text)|Which key country context, reform content, process and<br>project management characteristics predict the performance<br>of World Bank Public Sector Management (PSM) projects and<br>do they have differential effects on PSM vs. non-PSM projects?|<br>Political economy factors are key predictors of how the World Bank’s PSM projects<br>perform. These factors distinctly predict PSM project performance vs. non-PSM project<br>performance, suggesting PSM projects are particularly sensitive to the political context.|
|Briggs, 2020|Yes (Table<br>A1.2 and<br>Text)|Do the findings on development project success that focus on<br>World Bank data generalize across multiple donors?|Similar factors seem to drive project success across donors. For all donors, country-level<br>factors end up explaining only about 15% of the variation in project outcomes. All but<br>one of the donors with a large sample of projects in the database show a negative<br>relationship between project duration and outcome ratings. All donors found the same<br>country-time periods relatively easy or hard, and had more successfully rated projects in<br>recipient countries with faster growth.|

31