Through the global infrastructure of the PEP Network, the PIERI initiative provides financial, scientific and technical support to teams of southern-based researchers for the conduct of rigorous impact evaluations of social policies/programs on targeted populations in their home countries.
Based on either experimental or non-experimental approaches, these evaluations produce crucial empirical evidence that is either meant or can be used to:
- inform decision-makers, donors and taxpayers on the realization of expected benefits
- help improve and assist in program design and implementation
- foster accountability of implementation processes
- generate political support for continuation or expansion of programs, both within and beyond national boundaries (public good value)
Moreover, the PEP support and international mentorship program contributes to building capacity and experience of local experts in the conduct of scientifically-sound impact evaluations in developing countries.
Two approaches: Experimental & Non-experimental.
In both cases, a good institutional knowledge of the program is required:
- On eligibility rules and the target population
- On the objectives of the intervention and its potential unintended effects
- On outcomes that may potentially be affected by the program
- On the intervention calendar and the timing of effects (short-term, medium-term, long-term)
Experimental approach:
- Identify eligible population (e.g. unemployed youth, school-age children, etc.) and randomly assign them to treatment & control groups BEFORE the intervention
- Collect baseline data on characteristics and relevant behaviour of households/individuals in both groups (surveys of households, communities, schools, unemployment offices, health posts, etc.)
- Conduct intervention for the treatment group ONLY
- Follow-up: collect the (same) data again for both groups
- Contrast changes in outcomes between treatment and control groups.
Non-experimental approaches:
- Usually helpful if the intervention has already started
- Problem of the counterfactual: What would have happened to the population without the intervention?
- Solution : Compare with situation of a similar population that has not experienced the intervention: (1) Individuals just outside of the eligibility cutoff: Regression discontinuity; (2) Individuals with similar observed characteristics: Propensity score matching
- If baseline (prior to the intervention) data is available, comparison of changes in outcomes between beneficiaries and counterfactual populations.
History:
- PIERI launched in 2007 with funding from AusAID
- Offers research grants and scientific support to research teams from developing countries selected through a competitive call for proposals.
- Projects to date: Argentina, Brazil (2), Chile, China (3), Colombia, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal, Uganda, Uruguay.
PEP is looking to expand this initiative:
- Around a theme: e.g., social protection; child poverty.
- To specific regions: Africa; Latin America.
- Towards other innovative capacity-building approaches: PEP schools, 3ie-PEP