The Zero Club · Cross-Sector Synthesis · MDB Reform Platform
43 Zero Club Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: 14 Global Practices, 419 Projects, $34.5 Billion, Zero Satisfactory
The Zero Club methodology — countries with two or more IEG-evaluated projects and zero percent Satisfactory in a Global Practice — was applied identically across all 14 GPs in Sub-Saharan Africa. The result: 43 countries appear in at least one Zero Club. Every major sector. Every delivery instrument. 419 projects totalling $34.5 billion — one-fifth of all Africa commitment — committed to country-sector combinations where the Bank has never achieved Satisfactory. DRC appears in nine Zero Club lists simultaneously. The pattern is not about any single GP, instrument, or design approach. It is about the interaction between institutional environment and project design.
All 14 GPs. GP-by-GP Zero Club table. 15-country core. DRC definitive case. Instrument analysis. Robustness test (≥2/3/5/10 thresholds). Escape evidence. QAE bridge.
The Zero Club by Global Practice
Every major GP operating in Sub-Saharan Africa has a Zero Club. The table below shows the size of each:
| Global Practice | ZC Countries | ZC Projects | Committed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health, Nutrition & Population | 14 | 55 | $3.0bn |
| Finance, Competitiveness & Innovation | 14 | 55 | $1.7bn |
| Macroeconomics, Trade & Investment | 13 | 97 | $10.4bn |
| Education | 10 | 33 | $2.5bn |
| Energy & Extractives | 10 | 36 | $11.4bn |
| Governance | 9 | 27 | $0.5bn |
| Transport | 7 | 19 | $1.65bn |
| Urban, Resilience & Land | 8 | 27 | $1.1bn |
| Environment & Blue Economy | 8 | 30 | $0.6bn |
| Agriculture & Food | 4 | 14 | $0.9bn |
| Water | 3 | 6 | $0.2bn |
| Social Protection & Jobs | 3 | 8 | $0.2bn |
| Social Sustainability | 2 | 4 | $0.2bn |
| Poverty & Equity | 2 | 4 | $0.1bn |
Health and FCI have the widest reach — 14 countries each at zero Satisfactory. MTI has the deepest — 97 projects, $10.4 billion committed, across 13 countries. Energy has the highest commitment concentration — $11.4 billion, driven by South Africa’s Eskom ($9.9bn). Excluding South Africa, Energy’s commitment-weighted S+ rate rises from 15.7% to 26.1% — close to its count-weighted 27.6%.
The Instruments
IPF — 313 Projects, $23.7bn
Investment Project Financing. The Bank’s standard delivery instrument. Roads, schools, clinics, power plants. 75% of all Zero Club projects. The instrument designed for implementation in difficult environments — delivering zero Satisfactory across 43 countries.
DPF — 104 Projects, $10.8bn
Development Policy Financing. Budget support tied to policy and institutional reform. 25% of all Zero Club projects. The MTI Zero Club ($10.4bn) is overwhelmingly DPF. The instrument designed for policy leverage — producing the same result as IPF in the same countries.
Two instruments. Opposite design philosophies. IPFs build things. DPFs change policies. In the Zero Club countries, neither reaches Satisfactory. The failure is not in the instrument. It is in the match between instrument ambition and institutional capacity.
The IDA Concentration
The Zero Club is overwhelmingly an IDA problem. Of the 417 Zero Club projects, 393 — 94 percent — are financed by IDA credits or grants. By commitment, $27.9 billion of the $34.5 billion total (81 percent) comes from IDA. The remaining $6.6 billion in IBRD is almost entirely South Africa (Eskom). Strip out Eskom and the Zero Club is effectively 100 percent IDA.
| Source | Commitment | Share | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDA credits | $17.7bn | 51% | |
| IDA grants | $10.2bn | 30% | |
| IBRD loans | $6.6bn | 19% | Almost entirely South Africa |
DRC: The Definitive Case
9 Sectors at Zero
MTI ($1,670M), Health ($982M), Transport ($948M), Education ($550M), Energy ($339M), Agriculture ($230M), Social ($122M), SPJ ($112M), Poverty ($57M). 30 projects. $5.0 billion. Every GP. Every instrument.
What It Means
When the same country fails across nine different sectors, the explanation cannot be sector methodology, staff quality, or instrument choice. The evidence is most consistent with institutional capacity defining the operating constraints within which projects must succeed or fail.
The 15-Country Core
Fifteen countries appear in three or more Zero Club lists:
| Country | # Zero Clubs | Committed |
|---|---|---|
| DRC | 9 | $5.0bn |
| Congo-Brazzaville | 6 | $636M |
| CAR | 6 | $437M |
| Sierra Leone | 5 | $597M |
| Burundi | 5 | $431M |
| Lesotho | 5 | $390M |
| Niger | 4 | $1.96bn |
| Guinea | 4 | $720M |
| Mali | 4 | $683M |
| Cameroon | 4 | $420M |
| Madagascar | 3 | $1.24bn |
| Kenya | 3 | $1.23bn |
| South Sudan | 3 | $198M |
| Guinea-Bissau | 3 | $164M |
| Comoros | 3 | $54M |
The Robustness Test
| Minimum Project Threshold | Countries in ≥1 Zero Club | Country-GP Pairs |
|---|---|---|
| ≥2 projects (baseline) | 43 | 108 |
| ≥3 projects | 35 | 66 |
| ≥5 projects | 22 | 29 |
| ≥10 projects | 5 | 5 |
At five or more projects — a demanding standard — 22 countries still have at least one GP at zero Satisfactory. The finding is not an artefact of small-sample volatility.
The Escape Evidence
| Country | Where It Escapes | Where It Doesn’t | What Explains the Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 94% Transport, 96% Energy, 75% Education | — | State discipline. Imihigo contracts. Governance before financing. |
| Niger | 100% Water | 0% MTI ($1.65bn) | Water: focused infrastructure. MTI: broad DPF conditionality. Same country. |
| Cameroon | 80% Transport | 0% Health, 0% Education | Roads Fund provides single-institution discipline. Health/Education need cross-ministry coordination. |
| Somalia | 89% MTI | — | External implementation. UN/NGO delivery. Bounded objectives. |
The escape conditions are consistent: focused objectives, accountability at the delivery level, design matched to demonstrated capacity.
The Case Study Series
| # | Case | Commitment | S+ Rate | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nigeria Water | $1.8bn | 0.4% | Published |
| 2 | Angola DPF | $2.2bn | 0% | Published |
| 3 | South Africa Energy (Eskom) | $9.13bn | — | Published |
| 4 | Ghana FCI | ~$500M | 0% | Published |
| 5 | DRC Portfolio | $6.7bn | 6.1% | Published |
| 6 | DRC Inga | $107M+ | — | Published |
| 7 | Somalia | ~$900M | 89% | Published |
| 8 | Rwanda | $4.6bn | 68.5% | Published |
| 9 | The Zero Club — MTI in Africa | $10.4bn | 0% | Published |
| 10 | The Zero Club — Health in Africa | $3.0bn | 0% | Published |
| 11 | The Zero Club — Transport in Africa | $1.65bn | 0% | Published |
| 12 | The Zero Club — Education in Africa | $2.5bn | 0% | Published |
| 13 | Cross-Sector Synthesis | $34.5bn | 0% | This paper |
14 Global Practices. 43 countries. 419 projects. $34.5 billion. Two instruments — IPF and DPF — opposite design philosophies, same result. The failure is not in the sector, the instrument, the staff, or the design team. The evidence is most consistent with the interaction between institutional capacity and project design defining outcomes. The question is no longer analytical. It is institutional.