Pipeline design is one of the alternative designs that can generate counterfactuals for conducting impact evaluation. As the name suggests, the pipeline design examines how, when programs are executed in stages throughout some time, the subsets of the population that are only affected by the later phases can be utilized as comparison groups for the earlier phases.
In the case of really large-scale infrastructure projects, it sees widespread application. The pipeline strategy necessitates the following conditions being met before it can be implemented: (a) the populations that are included in each phase must share similar features; (b) the populations that are included in subsequent phases must wait to obtain benefits until the scheduled beginning of their phase.
Where can we employ pipeline design? #
Impact evaluations have the option of utilizing the pipeline methodology for programs that have been implemented in a variety of ministries over time. It is also possible to employ programs that will be implemented in various locations over time due to their huge scale, and since it is rational to implement programs in stages, this can be done. The design of pipelines is also effective in situations where there are delays in the implementation of the program and certain geographical areas or regions receive the program later than others.
| Natural Variation Natural variation is another strategy that expands on the fundamental notion behind pipeline design. Taking advantage of climate differences, unanticipated delays in the launch of the project, or variations caused by a lack of supplies or staff in some locations are all examples of natural variation.
|
References
Baker, Judy (2000) Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Bamberger, Michael (2006) Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time, and Data Constraints. IEG: World Bank, Washington D.C.
Bamberger M (2012). Introduction to Mixed Methods in Impact Evaluation. Guidance Note No. 3. Washington DC: InterAction.
Bonbright D (2012). Use of Impact Evaluation Results. Guidance Note No. 4. Washington DC: InterAction. – This guidance note highlights three themes that are crucial for effective utilization of evaluation results.
Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice. World Bank Publications.
Gupta Kapoor, A. (2002) Review of the Impact Evaluation Methodologies Used by the Operations Evaluation Department Over the Past 25 Years, OED Working Paper, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2009). Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. World Bank Publications.
Kremer, Michael and Esther Duflo (2005) “Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development Effectiveness” in Pitman et al.
Rogers P (2012). Introduction to Impact Evaluation. Impact Evaluation Notes No. 1. Washington DC: InterAction.
Shadish, William, Thomas Cook and Donald Campbell (2006) Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Academic Internet Publishers
