Impact Evaluation in Practice, Second Edition

Abstract

The fi nding, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily refl ect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank or IDB, which privileges and immunities are specifi cally reserved.

Findings from a WE-Care project final evaluation: January 2020

“…The confidence intervals in the graphs are only approximate (see Annex for more information). For an accessible introduction to matching, see chapter 7 of Gertler et al (2016).…”

Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations?

“…As previously mentioned, counterfactual analysis in the field of policy impact evaluation aims at comparing a situation with a policy and its counter-part "what would have happened in the absence of the policy" [23]. Several international institutions provide guidelines on counterfactual analysis, with the aim of enhancing policy impact evaluation procedures [9,13,[24][25][26]. In these guidelines, a set of methodological approaches are commonly considered (see Table 3).…”

“…Methods Khandker et al [24] Gertler et al [26] Lois and Rodrigues [13] EC [25] European Evaluation Network for Rural Development (EENRD) [ From a methodological perspective, experimental approaches are considered the evaluation golden standard, as they allow for robust counterfactual comparisons through random assignment of programme participation among individuals [27]. However, some ethical and representativeness issues provide barriers to application of these methods, and are yet to have been applied for evaluation of agricultural programmes in the EU [28].…”

Examining performance change and its drivers in Irish ports 2000-2016

“…The analysis comprises a quantitative summary of the evolution of performance among the sub-units from 2000 to 2016. In completing the quantitative summary, a mixed methods approach is used as described by Gertler et al (2016) as follows:…”