Financial Additionality of Multilateral Development Banks in Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report: Financial Additionality of Multilateral Development Banks in Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects
1. Main Comments and Suggestions
I consider that the idea is interesting and worth doing research. However, the author should answer at least two questions “What is new?” and “So what?” in order to make their contribution more distinctive.
I suggest to reorganize and rename sections of the paper since now they do not follow common practice. Section 4 could be: “Research methodology”. Point 4.1. “Research sample, data collection and variables”, and from this section you should remove issues connected with descriptive statistics, which should be moved to next new section 5 “Results and discussion”. Point 4.1 should start with description how you set the research sample and how you collected the data. Point 4.2. could be: “Method of analysis” where you present econometric model and estimation methods. Point 4.3 in your paper should be changed on section 5 and renamed “Results and discussion”. This section should start with descriptive statistics, followed by correlation matrix, and then the results of the model estimation. Section 5 should be section 6 and renamed: Conclusions.
Moreover, the introduction is incomplete. The author needs to present more clearly what is the idea, the research questions/hypotheses, what research methods are used, what’s new in results, what contribution is indicated.
The article does not provide the theoretical framework. In the paper there is no research questions/hypothesis but in the text, you say that you want to verify MDB financial additionality (page 3 lines 86-87: “Section 4 conducts an econometric analysis to verify MDB financial additionality (…)”). This part must be added to the text in order to make it scientific not being just an expertise.
The literature review is very fragmentary, possibly because of specificity of the topic. That is why, you should precisely indicate what have been done to date and how and what your research adds to the previous research. You could add to the reference list the following item:
Benedict Probst, Lotte Westermann, Laura Díaz Anadón, Andreas Kontoleon, Leveraging private investment to expand renewable power generation: Evidence on financial additionality and productivity gains from Uganda, World Development, Volume 140, 2021, 105347, ISSN 0305-750X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105347.
Take into consideration references in the suggested paper as well.
I am confused by section 3. Do you present data taken from the database o you make your own computations? If the latter you should add this point to the results section. If this is the case, I recommend to first describe the steps of presentation of the results in this section.
In methodology section, in terms of independent variables please add references indicating previous studies you base on while their selection.
In the results section you should add to table 5 information about R squared and adjusted R squared and VIF values. Moreover, in table 5 I was confused by the heading of the table (a-d). What do they mean? I could not find explanation in the text.
In conclusions you should add limitations of the study, suggestions for the practice and regulators.
In the current version, the paper remains underdeveloped. What is theoretical background of the study and research questions/hypothesis? It is also important to make useful implications for the practice. Do you have any suggestions to improve the current regulation or practice?
Hope the above comments will help the authors to improve the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores the research subject of financial additionally as the unique value added by the MDBs to PPI projects. The manuscript is well written and is comprehensive. I find the issue relevant. The paper is well done and I have only a few suggestions. The non-financial additionally usually emerge as projects get under way. The financial additionally covers financing structure, innovative financing, resource mobilization and own account equity (EBRD; IFC). The ability of MDBs to take on long-term risks is definitely one of the main reasons of MDBs financial additionally. I would advise to additionally discuss the authors’ third finding of “a different approach other than ordinary MDB finance” (line 344) and (” innovative blended finance instruments” line 352) using more literature sources on the innovative financing solutions and its potential problems in assessment of financial additionally . Does financial additionally also arise in terms of subsidy? Particular differences may arise when official support is taken to include blended finance or subsidies. The discussion can also encompass the MDBs’ monitoring systems related to the PPI projects. How to ensure operational follow-up and regular reporting on the PPI projects (covering both quality-at-entry and quality-during-implementation). The authors can also incorporate what are the gaps and limitations of the current research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review for
Financial Additionality of Multilateral Development Banks in Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects
The level of originality of the paper is high. The literature review and proposed methodology are properly discussed and not compared to the previous studies.
In this paper, authors used just 18 sources, containing both historical and fundamental works, as well as the latest scientific research on this topic. But the literature review can be structured. The papers discussed many points of this study. Please, discuss these papers.
Mishina V.Yu., Khomyakova l.I. Dedollarization and settlements in national currencies: Eurasian and Latin American experience. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2020;(9):61-79. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-9-61-79
An, J., Mikhaylov, A., Richter, U.H. (2020) Trade War Effects: Evidence from Sectors of Energy and Resources in Africa. Heliyon, 6(12), e05693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05693
An, J., Mikhaylov, A. (2020). Russian energy projects in South Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 31(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2020/v31i3a7809
The introduction section has benefit from having a clearer structure of what to expect in the paper. Furthermore, the author(s) would benefit from being more concise in their writing, as much of the content was redundant and overemphasized. While it is good practice to assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the content, a topic and/or discussion does not need to be explained over and over again if it is stated both adequately and appropriately once.
Some conclusions contribute to the study of the problem. The author does not formulate the problem itself – it makes impossible to analyse the contribution of the paper. The aim or the question of the paper (or even the hypothesis of the author) are formulated.
Overall, it is very clear to grasp understanding of the manuscript and content in its current state. I strongly advise using hypothesis points to articulate and/or express material in scientific writing. Publication of this piece seems likely in any reputable scientific periodical after a correction in the writing of the manuscript.
Table 2 is important to explore the specifics. Some conclusions can contribute to the study of the problem.
Authors need to add more details on the range of simulation considered in this work should be clearly outlined within the abstract. The current statements are vague and too general to get an idea of the work that have been accomplished.
Authors need to add more details on this particular works within citations [10-13].
The paper possesses a proper form of well-structured and readable technical language of the field and represents the expected knowledge of the journal`s readership.
There are minor errors in English, but this does not affect the general nature of the work. The current study brings many new to the existing literature or field. For one, the author(s) seem to have a good grasp of the current literature on their topic area (i.e., recent literature and seminal texts relevant to their study is not cited/referenced).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report 2: Financial Additionality of Multilateral Development Banks in Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects
Dear Authors,
I am glad with the amendments that you have introduced in the paper. In my opinion, the paper can be accepted and published.
All the best for you.
