The MIGA Record
Two Notes · May 2026 · mdbreform.com
↓ The MIGA Record: The Guarantor That Cannot Verify Its Own Results. (PDF)
↓ MIGA in Africa: 459 Projects. $36 Billion. 20% of Exposure. (PDF)
| 50% Africa S+ — down from 72% |
43% Work quality — 3-year rolling |
0 IMPACT projects evaluated by IEG |
40% → 20% Africa’s share — halved |
In 2024, the World Bank Group restructured its guarantee architecture under a single platform coordinated by MIGA. IBRD, IDA, and IFC continue to issue their own guarantees. MIGA coordinates the overall platform — setting standards, harmonising products, and targeting $20 billion per year by 2030. In FY2025, MIGA issued a record $9.5 billion in guarantees. It then transferred $7.1 billion of that risk to commercial reinsurers. MIGA keeps the premium income. The reinsurers bear the risk.
These two notes examine the institutional record on which that platform is built.
Eight Issues
1. The Africa Collapse
IEG’s RAP 2024 documents that MIGA’s development outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa fell from 72 percent Satisfactory to 50 percent. IDA and blend countries fell from 74 percent to 50 percent. Infrastructure — the sector where MIGA is concentrating — fell from 74 percent to 63 percent. Only 60 MIGA projects were evaluated in FY17–22. MIGA scaled up where it performs worst.
2. The Portfolio
The top 12 host countries by cumulative exposure are all middle-income. Nigeria — the first Sub-Saharan African country — appears at number thirteen. Between FY2017 and FY2025, MIGA nearly tripled its annual issuance. Africa’s share halved from 40 percent to 20 percent. Africa’s absolute issuance held flat: $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion. The growth went to Europe and Central Asia, Latin America, and MENA.
3. The Measurement Gap
MIGA launched its IMPACT measurement framework in FY2020. Six years later, IEG has not evaluated a single IMPACT-tracked project. MIGA’s website says “every development outcome claim is clearly linked and regularly followed.” IEG says 69 percent of outcomes are not tracked. MIGA’s FY2025 annual report claims 4.4 million people gaining electricity access. MIGA’s own Disclosure Statement under the Impact Investing Principles says: “MIGA makes no guarantee or other promise as to any outcomes.” One document promises impact. The other disclaims it.
4. Work Quality
The dimension MIGA controls directly — due diligence, underwriting, structuring, monitoring — fell from 56 percent to 43 percent on the three-year rolling average. MIGA management’s response: the data is old. IEG’s response: the data comes from the same evaluation cycle as the development outcome ratings. MIGA cannot have it both ways.
5. Foreign Investment Outcomes
MIGA achieves foreign investment outcomes at half the rate of project-level outcomes. IEG’s deep dive: 55 percent of project-level outcomes fully achieved, 31 percent of foreign investment outcomes. The reason MIGA exists — catalysing foreign investment — succeeds at half the rate.
6. The Non-Honoring Products
NH credit enhancement products now account for a third of MIGA’s business. IEG found that 86 percent of NH business went to high- and upper-middle-income countries. The products were introduced to serve IDA and Africa. IEG’s conclusion: “more suited for upper-middle and high-income countries.” The evaluation could not determine whether borrowing costs fell. It could not confirm whether SOE governance improved. It flagged debt sustainability concerns for IDA countries.
7. Africa: Same Countries, Same Failures
MIGA’s five largest Africa exposures — Nigeria ($3.9 billion), Angola ($3.3 billion), South Africa ($2.9 billion), Senegal ($2.7 billion), Kenya ($2.6 billion) — are in the same countries where the IDA lending portfolio has documented zero Satisfactory outcomes in transport and energy. Nigeria: zero on $918 million in transport. Kenya: zero on $1.4 billion in transport and $1.4 billion in energy. South Africa: zero on $9.9 billion in energy. The databases cannot be linked to compare outcomes.
8. The Database Gap
MIGA uses numeric project IDs. The World Bank uses P-codes. Zero matches across 1,529 MIGA records and 10,542 IEG records. When MIGA, IBRD, and IFC participate in the same transaction — as in Nigeria’s power sector — the Group cannot reconcile its own exposure across institutions.
The Board approved the $20 billion guarantee platform without requiring MIGA to close any of these gaps. The institutional note poses six questions the Board must answer. The Africa note asks a seventh: does MIGA’s guarantee add demonstrable value in Africa beyond what IDA lending already provides?
Related Analysis — Zero Accountability
Eleven Findings from the Spring Meetings →
Related Analysis — The Energy Record
Mission 300. Mission Impossible. →
Related Analysis — Nigeria Power Sector
How Not to Do PPPs in Africa →
Related Analysis — IFC in Fragile States
IFC Fragile States: 11% Satisfactory →