This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Some Reflections On Current Debates In Impact Evaluation

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
White, Howard () (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

A debate on approaches to impact evaluation has raged in development circles in recent years. This note gives some reflections on this debate through discussion of four issues.

First, it is pointed out that there are two definitions of impact evaluation. Neither one is right or wrong, but they refer to completely different things. There is no point in methodological debates unless they agree a common starting point.

Second, there is confusion between counterfactuals, which are implied by the definition of impact evaluation adopted in this paper, and control groups, which are not always necessary to construct a counterfactual. Third, calls for addressing contribution rather than attribution are also definitional, mistaking claims of attribution to mean sole attribution, which is does not. I then consider accusations of being 'positivist' and 'linear', which are, respectively, correct and unclear.

Finally, these arguments do not mean that there is a hierarchy of methods, rather that quantitative approaches, including RCTs, are often the best available methods, having the added advantage of allowing analysis of cost effectiveness.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.3ieimpact.org/page.php?pg=papers
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Initiative for Impact Evaluation in its series 3ie Working papers with number 2009-1.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: 01 Apr 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ris:iiierp:2009_001

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Global Development Network, Post Box No. 7510, Vasant Kunj P.O., New Delhi
Email:
Web page: http://www.3ieimpact.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ron Bose).

Related research
Keywords: attribution; counterfactual; impact evaluation;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer for RePEc, for example by editing a NEP report.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-4.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.