{"title":"External Validity and Policy Adaptation: From Impact Evaluation to Policy Design","authors":"M. J. Williams","doi":"10.1093/wbro/lky010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n With the growing number of impact evaluations worldwide, the question of how to apply this evidence in policy making processes has arguably become the main challenge for evidence-based policy making. How can policy makers predict whether a policy will have the same impact in their context as it did elsewhere, and how should this influence the policy’s design and implementation? This paper suggests that failures of external validity (both in transporting and scaling up policy) can be understood as arising from an interaction between a policy’s theory of change and a dimension of the context in which it is being implemented. The paper surveys existing approaches to analyzing external validity, and suggests that there has been more focus on the generalizability of impact evaluation results than on the applicability of evidence to specific contexts. To help fill this gap, the study develops a method of “mechanism mapping” that maps a policy’s theory of change against salient contextual assumptions to identify external validity problems and suggest appropriate policy adaptations. In deciding whether and how to adapt a policy, there is a fundamental informational trade-off between the strength of evidence on the policy from other contexts and the policy maker’s information about the local context.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/wbro/lky010","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank Research Observer","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26
Abstract
With the growing number of impact evaluations worldwide, the question of how to apply this evidence in policy making processes has arguably become the main challenge for evidence-based policy making. How can policy makers predict whether a policy will have the same impact in their context as it did elsewhere, and how should this influence the policy’s design and implementation? This paper suggests that failures of external validity (both in transporting and scaling up policy) can be understood as arising from an interaction between a policy’s theory of change and a dimension of the context in which it is being implemented. The paper surveys existing approaches to analyzing external validity, and suggests that there has been more focus on the generalizability of impact evaluation results than on the applicability of evidence to specific contexts. To help fill this gap, the study develops a method of “mechanism mapping” that maps a policy’s theory of change against salient contextual assumptions to identify external validity problems and suggest appropriate policy adaptations. In deciding whether and how to adapt a policy, there is a fundamental informational trade-off between the strength of evidence on the policy from other contexts and the policy maker’s information about the local context.
期刊介绍:
The World Bank Journals, including the Research Observer, boast the largest circulation among economics titles. The Research Observer is distributed freely to over 9,100 subscribers in non-OECD countries. Geared towards informing nonspecialist readers about research within and outside the Bank, it covers areas of economics relevant for development policy. Intended for policymakers, project officers, journalists, and educators, its surveys and overviews require only minimal background in economic analysis. Articles are not sent to referees but are assessed and approved by the Editorial Board, including distinguished economists from outside the Bank. The Observer has around 1,500 subscribers in OECD countries and nearly 10,000 subscribers in developing countries.