AFD (Agence Française de Développement). 2022. “Evaluation d’impact—cartographie des usages.” AFD, Paris. https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/evaluation-impact-cartographie-usages.

Aston, Thomas. 2022. “The Comeback of the Case Study?” Medium, January 11, 2022. https://thomasmtaston.medium.com/the-comeback-of-the-case-study-461c441fe89d.

Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Befani, Barbara. 2012. “Modes of Causality and Causal Inference.” Background paper in Elliot Stern, Nicoletta Stame, John Mayne, Kim Forss, Rick Davies, and Barbara Befani, “Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation: Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International Development,” Working Paper 38, Department for International Development, London, A1–A12.

Befani, Barbara. 2016. Pathways to Change: Evaluating Development Interventions with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Report 2016:05. Stockholm: Expert Group for Aid Studies. https://eba.se/en/reports/pathways-to-change-evaluating-development-interventions-with-qualitative-comparative-analysis-qca/4157/.

Befani, Barbara. 2021. Credible Explanations of Development Outcomes: Improving Quality and Rigour with Bayesian Theory-Based Evaluation. Report 2021:03. Stockholm: Expert Group for Aid Studies. https://eba.se/en/reports/cridible-explanations-of-development-outcomes-with-bayesian-theory-based-evaluation/17287/.

Bennett, Andrew. 2022. “Drawing Contingent Generalizations from Case Studies.” In The Case for Case Studies: Methods and Applications in International Development, edited by Jennifer Widner, Michael Woolcock, and Daniel Ortega Nieto, 195–218. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/31D76BE9C37D459E2B153D43C4B3B647/9781108427272AR.pdf/The_Case_for_Case_Studies.pdf?event-type=FTLA.

Bennett, A., and Checkel, J. T., eds. 2015. Process Tracing. Cambridge University Press.

Bhaskar, Roy. 1975. A Realist Theory of Science. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Cartwright, Nancy. 2004. “Causation: One Word, Many Things.” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 805–819. doi:10.1086/426771.

Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cartwright, Nancy. 2022. “How to Learn about Causes in the Single Case.” In The Case for Case Studies: Methods and Applications in International Development, edited by Jennifer Widner, Michael Woolcock, and Daniel Ortega Nieto, 29–51. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/31D76BE9C37D459E2B153D43C4B3B647/9781108427272AR.pdf/The_Case_for_Case_Studies.pdf?event-type=FTLA.

Delahais, Thomas, and Jacques Toulemonde. 2012. “Applying Contribution Analysis: Lessons from Five Years of Practice.” Evaluation 18 (3): 281–293. doi:10.1177/1356389012450810.

De Meur, Gisèle, and Benoit Rihoux. 2002. L’Analyse quali-quantitative comparée (AQQC QCA): approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Academia-Bruylant.

Dixon, Vibecke, and Michael Bamberger. 2022. “Incorporating Process Evaluation into Impact Evaluation: What, Why and How.” 3ie Working Paper 50, International Initiative for Impact Education, New Delhi.

Fenton Villar, Paul. 2022. “Structured Literature Reviews: Building Transparency and Trust in Standards of Reporting Evidence.” IEG Methods and Evaluation Capacity Development Working Paper Series. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.

Glennan, Stuart S. 1996. “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation.” Erkenntnis 44: 49–71. doi:10.1007/BF00172853.

Gürerk, Özgür, Andrea Bönsch, Lucas Braun, Christian Grund, Christine Harbring, Thomas Kittsteiner, and Andreas Staffeldt. 2014. “Experimental Economics in Virtual Reality.” MPRA Paper 66617, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Munich. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/66617/.

Hanckel, Benjamin, Mark Petticrew, James Thomas, and Judith Green. 2021. “The Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to Address Causality in Complex Systems: A Systematic Review of Research on Public Health Interventions.” BMC Public Health 21: 877. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10926-2.

Hultman, Nate, Jiehong Lou, and Stephen Hutton. 2020. “A Review of Community Co-benefits of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).” Environmental Research Letters 15 (5): 053002. doi:0.1088/1748-9326/.

Jimenez, Emmanuel, Hugh Waddington, Neeta Goel, Audrey Prost, Andrew Pullin, Howard White, Shaon Lahiri, and Anmol Narain. 2018. “Mixing and Matching: Using Qualitative Methods to Improve Quantitative Impact Evaluations (IEs) and Systematic Reviews (SRs) of Development Outcomes.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 10 (4): 400–421. doi:10.1080/19439342.2018.1534875.

Johnson, Susan, and Saltanat Rasulova. 2017. “Qualitative Research and the Evaluation of Development Impact: Incorporating Authenticity into the Assessment of Rigour.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 9 (2): 263–276. doi:10.1080/19439342.2017.1306577.

Kane, Robin, Carlisle Levine, Carlyn Orians, and Claire Reinelt. 2021. “Contribution Analysis: A Promising Method for Assessing Advocacy’s Impact.” New Directions for Evaluation 2021 (171): 45–57. doi:10.1002/ev.20471.

Kazi, M. A. 2003. Realist Evaluation in Practice. London: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209762.

Mahoney, James. 2000. “Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research 28 (4): 387–424. doi:10.1177/0049124100028004001.

Marx, A., B. Rihoux, and C. Ragin. 2014. “The Origins, Development, and Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The First 25 Years.” European Political Science Review 6 (1): 115–142.

Pawson, Ray. 2013. The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Los Angeles: Sage.

Quadrant Conseil. 2017. “How Can Impact Be Evaluated?” https://www.quadrant-conseil.fr/ressources/impacttree.html.

Ragin, C. C. 2014. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Raimondo, Estelle. 2020. “Getting Practical with Causal Mechanisms: The Application of Process-Tracing under Real-World Evaluation Constraints.” New Directions for Evaluation 2020 (167): 45–58. doi:10.1002/ev.20430.

Raimondo, Estelle, and Derek Beach. Forthcoming. “Process Tracing Methods in Evaluation.” In Research Handbook on Program Evaluation, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer and S. Mumford. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.

Ravallion, Martin. 2020. “Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule?” Working Paper 27554, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27554.

Rihoux, Benoit, and Chares C. Ragin. 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Applied Social Research Methods. Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452226569.

Rothgang, Michael, and Berhard Lageman. 2021. “The Unused Potential of Process Tracing as Evaluation Approach: The Case of Cluster Policy Evaluation.” Evaluation 27 (4): 527–543. doi:10.1177/13563890211041676.

Rowe, Andy. 2019. “Rapid Impact Evaluation.” Evaluation 25 (4): 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019870213.

Schmitt, J. 2020. “The Causal Mechanism Claim in Evaluation: Does the Prophecy Fulfill?” New Directions for Evaluation 2020 (167): 11–26.

Stern, Elliot, Nicoletta Stame, John Mayne, Kim Forss, Rick Davies, and Barbara Befani. 2012. “Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation: Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department for International Development.” Working Paper 38, Department for International Development, London.

Ton, Giel, John Mayne, Thomas Delahais, Jonny Morell, Barbara Befani, Marina Apgar, and Peter O’Flynn. 2019. “Contribution Analysis and Estimating the Size of Effects: Can We Reconcile the Possible with the Impossible?” Practice Paper 20, Centre for Development Impact, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/contribution-analysis-and-estimating-the-size-of-effects-can-we-reconcile-the-possible-with-the-impossible/.

Trochim, W. M. 1985. “Pattern Matching, Validity, and Conceptualization in Program Evaluation.” Evaluation Review 9 (5): 575–604.

Trochim, W. M. 1989. “Outcome Pattern Matching and Program Theory.” Evaluation and Program Planning 12(4): 355–366.

Widner, Jennifer, Michael Woolcock, and Daniel Ortega Nieto, eds. 2022. The Case for Case Studies: Methods and Applications in International Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/31D76BE9C37D459E2B153D43C4B3B647/9781108427272AR.pdf/The_Case_for_Case_Studies.pdf?event-type=FTLA.

Woolcock, M. 2013. “Using Case Studies to Explore the External Validity of ‘Complex’ Development Interventions.” Evaluation 19 (3): 229–248.

Woolcock, M. 2022. “Will It Work Here? Using Case Studies to Generate ‘Key Facts’ About Complex Development Programs.” In The Case for Case Studies: Methods and Applications in International Development, edited by Jennifer Widner, Michael Woolcock, and Daniel Ortega Nieto, 87–116. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

World Bank. 2018. Carbon Markets for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in a Warming World. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.

1 For a more detailed explanation of the differences between various forms of literature review, see the Independent Evaluation Group’s Methods Paper Series publication on conducting structured literature reviews in evaluation (Fenton Villar 2022).

1 In Boolean minimization, a long, complex expression is reduced to a more parsimonious expression. As it relates to the type of analysis used in this study, the process can be summarized as follows: “If two Boolean expressions (combining multiple factors) differ in only one causal variable yet produce the same outcome, then the causal variable that distinguishes the two expressions can be considered irrelevant and can be removed to create a simple, combined expression” (Ragin 2014, 83).