Analyzing results. QCA was used to analyze the relationships among the precondition barriers, the output (RE installed capacity), and the energy and environmental benefits (electricity supplied and CO2 emissions avoided). The technique is implemented through specialized software that uses Boolean algebra to identify the superset or subset relationships present within the data matrix (table 4.2).1 Since QCA is a descriptive technique, its results should be evaluated in the context of the theoretical understanding of the subject matter and the in-depth knowledge of the cases to determine causality.

The superset or subset relationships identified by QCA are interpreted in terms of necessity, sufficiency, or both. A near-necessary condition is one that must be present all or almost all of the time for the outcome to occur; the absence of the near-necessary condition prevents the outcome. A sufficient condition is one that when present causes the outcome to occur all or most of the time. QCA recognizes causal complexity (near-necessary and sufficient conditions may be composed of multiple individual conditions), equifinality (there may be multiple paths to an outcome), and imperfect relationships (a condition may be “almost always” necessary or sufficient).

QCA provides two goodness-of-fit measures: consistency and coverage. Ranging between 0.0 and 1.0, the metrics report the degree to which a precondition barrier and output or outcome co-occur within the data set.

• Coverage provides a measure of empirical relevance, reporting the degree to which a necessary or sufficient condition explains instances of the occurrence of the outcome.
• Consistency is the more crucial measure and reports the strength of the superset or subset relationship. When used to test for the presence of a necessity relationship, consistency reports the degree to which cases exhibiting the outcome also exhibit the proposed necessary condition. A score of 1.0 indicates that the necessary condition is present whenever the outcome is present. When used to test for sufficiency, a score of 1.0 indicates that whenever the sufficient condition is present, the outcome is present. Scores less than 1.0 indicate imperfect relationships. The standard necessity consistency threshold is 0.9, which permits a small degree of inconsistency to accommodate measurement error and imperfect relationships. The standard sufficiency consistency threshold is 0.8, which indicates that a given condition (or combination of conditions) is generally sufficient to produce the outcome. Scores closer to 1.0 indicates stronger relationships.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: — = not available; QCA = qualitative comparative analysis; RE = renewable energy.

Multiple QCA analyses were run to test the relationships theorized within the initial ToC based on empirical information translated from the in-depth country case studies. The main variation applied was to model the static output or outcomes (2016) and changes in output or outcomes (2000–16). The remainder of this chapter focuses on the final results of the QCA.

The first step in analyzing the QCA results was to confirm whether the empirical evidence substantiated the causal relationship that high levels of RE capacity (outputs) result in greater energy supply and environmental benefits (outcomes). This would validate, for example, whether development of RE capacity is followed by its adequate integration into power systems and operations that produce the electricity that is consumed. It would also confirm whether the development of RE is displacing fossil-based generation, which is necessary to secure environmental benefits through avoided emissions. The QCA found high RE capacity to be necessary and almost always sufficient for the realization of high energy produced and high environmental benefits (table 5.2, first and second rows, Static). A substantial increase (that is, change) in RE capacity was found to be almost always necessary and almost always sufficient for substantial increases in energy and environmental benefits (table 5.2, third row, Change). There are two aberrant cases here (the rationale is further described in box 5.1): (i) Mexico experienced a substantial increase in RE capacity yet did not realize a substantial increase in energy benefits (violating sufficiency) primarily because of substantially lower levels of precipitation during the year of data selection (2016) to fuel its significant hydropower capacity, and (ii) Kenya, in contrast, realized a substantial increase in energy benefits despite not experiencing a substantial increase in RE capacity, primarily because geothermal power was substituted for hydropower that had become less reliable—a swap between two environmentally friendly technologies. Hence, change in RE capacity is almost always necessary and sufficient for change in energy benefits. A substantial increase in RE capacity was found to be near-necessary but not sufficient for a substantial increase in environmental benefits (table 5.2, fourth row, Change).

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: Eng = energy benefits; Eng.d = change in energy benefits (2000–16); Env = environmental benefits; Env.d = change in environmental benefits (2000–16); Ncon = necessity consistency; Re = development of renewable energy capacity; Re.d = change in renewable energy capacity (2000–16); Scon = sufficiency consistency.

These results validate that the theorized output-to-outcomes relationship in the ToC are consistent within these country contexts. High RE capacity is near-necessary and almost always sufficient for the realization of substantial energy and environmental benefits. Increased RE development is, in general, both near-necessary and sufficient for increased energy benefits, with the previously noted exceptions. Finally, increased RE development was found to be near-necessary but not sufficient for substantially improved environmental benefits. This latter results was expected, since the environmental benefits depend greatly on (i) the types of energy production being offset with renewable energies, which can contextually vary according to the generation mix in power systems, and (ii) whether there is concurrent growth of traditional (fossil-based) energy production when RE is also expanding.

The second step in analyzing the QCA results is to assess the relationships among the six precondition barriers identified in the ToC in relation to RE production. The remainder of this section examines the effect of the preconditions on two measures of RE production: (i) high RE production (static measure) and (ii) substantial increases in RE capacity per capita between 2000 and 2016 (change or delta measure). Between these two analyses, Jordan and Nicaragua were the two countries with substantive differences in static and change or delta measures, and variances in analytical results can be attributed to these differences.

The relationship between the precondition barriers and QCA was used to identify the combinations of preconditions that are near necessary, sufficient, or both for RE output (both static and change or delta measures). As part of the sufficiency analysis, QCA can distinguish among core and contributory causal conditions by applying a counterfactual logic. Core conditions are those that counterfactual analysis identifies as fundamental to understanding the occurrence of the outcome. Contributory conditions are not less important than core conditions but serve a different purpose, providing context and nuance for a full account of the outcome’s occurrence.2

The results of the initial analysis were derived using the static measure for RE development (data from 2016). Consistent with the ToC, the analysis indicates that policy and regulation (POL in table 5.3), and integration of RE in power systems(INT in table 5.3) are each, individually or in combination, near-necessary precondition barriers that need to be addressed to develop RE (table 5.3). Improvements to design and technical standards (IMP in table 5.3) also met the threshold of 0.90 for consistency, though this was not observed in Morocco and Nicaragua . Therefore, it was determined that these two precondition barriers should be considered almost near-necessary rather than near-necessary factors for RE development.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Continuing to use the static measure of RE, the QCA reveals two overlapping pathways in the case study sample for RE development (table 5.4). The most common pathway (S1 in table 5.4) is the one followed by China, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and Turkey, which was to address all six precondition barriers. Counterfactual analysis identified integration of RE into power systems and mobilization of financing as core explanatory conditions. Morocco and Nicaragua reveal a second pathway (S2 in table 5.4) to successful RE development, one that does not require all six barriers to be addressed. Both countries successfully addressed their policies and regulations (POL in table 5.4) and integration into power systems (INT in table 5.4); Morocco additionally mitigated investment risks (MIT in table 5.4) to mobilize the private sector. Nicaragua appears unique in that it successfully achieved RE development with a minimum of advantages. Here, the absence of successfully improving design and technical standards emerges as a core condition, which suggests that understanding how these countries overcame the disadvantage of not having successfully addressed this barrier is important to making sense of their success. It may be due to participation of qualified external private developers, who typically adhere to industry norms and international standards. These results must, of course, be interpreted based on theoretical and substantive knowledge of the RE sector and the country contexts.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: In qualitative comparative analysis, preconditions in all CAPS are those achieved within the observed case studies; * indicates and; and + indicates or. imp = improvements to design and technical standards; int = integration into power systems; mit = mitigate investment risks; mob = mobilize financing; pol = policy and regulatory; str = strengthen institutional capacity.

The results of the additional subsequent analysis were derived using the change or delta measure for RE development (data from 2000 to 2016). In this analysis, the QCA results indicated a single condition as consistent with near necessity, successfully addressing policy and regulation barriers (POL in table 5.5). However, the integration of RE into power systems (INT in table 5.5) had a near-necessary score of 0.89. In contrast, under the static scenario, four preconditions (POL, INT, STR, and IMP in table 5.4) were identified as necessary for achieving the static level of RE development.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

The findings of the sufficiency analysis for the change or delta in RE development are similar to those of the static analysis (table 5.6). Three pathways to success emerge, the most prominent of which (D1 in table 5.6) includes addressing all six barriers and accounts for five countries (China, India, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and Turkey). The other two pathways provide routes to RE development that do not address all six barriers. Pathway D2 in table 5.6 represents Morocco and Nicaragua, which substantially increased RE capacity despite addressing just two of the six barriers. Pathway D3 in table 5.6 represents Morocco and Jordan and therefore overlaps with pathway D2. These countries were able to address inadequate policies and regulations, overcome challenges integrating RE into power system, and cover residual shortcomings to a degree by mitigating investment risks (MIT in table 5.6). Nicaragua therefore again stands out as unique because it was able to develop its RE capacity by addressing just the two near-necessary precondition barriers.

Source: Independent Evaluation Group.

Note: In qualitative comparative analysis, preconditions in all CAPS are those achieved within the observed case studies; * indicates and; and + indicates or. Kenya is an outlier case and is omitted from the list of observed cases. See box 5.1 for more details. imp = improvements to design and technical standards; int = integration into power systems; mit = mitigate investment risks; mob = mobilize financing; pol = policy and regulatory; str = strengthen institutional capacity.

Two preconditions are shared by all three pathways. The presence of successful improvement of the policy and regulatory environment reflects its status as a near-necessary condition, as discussed above. Successful integration of RE into power systems emerges as the single core condition across all three pathways, indicating that successfully addressing this barrier is essential to improving RE capacity. Addressing this barrier, however, is not sufficient by itself, as all pathways also include the successful reduction of at least one other barrier. The successful improvement of the policy and regulatory environment emerges as a common condition across all three pathways, reflecting its status as a necessary condition. The veracity of the findings was checked with additional comparative analysis (for instance, with and without hydropower energy benefits included), and, although not presented here, these findings further solidified confidence in the QCA results.