Tailor evaluation questions with clear and direct linkages to the economic model and program logic/theory of change to improve the clarity and relevance of evaluation results. The final IDP evaluation yielded a wealth of data, analysis and insights into the results of the compact and the key mechanisms underlying expected impacts. Nonetheless, several of the original evaluation questions included in the original evaluation scope, and subsequently in the evaluation design report, were framed in ways that were overly broad and unspecific. Some called for collection of data on relevant outcomes, yet provided little clarity as to how outcomes of interest linked to the program’s theory of change. Future evaluations of power infrastructure programs should leverage the evaluation management process, including engagement with country counterparts, to develop and refine evaluation questions that highlight key objectives for learning and accountability while linking to the specific details of program design, economic modeling of impacts, and country context. More specific evaluation reporting about the effectiveness of interventions tested by MCC investments will better facilitate agency learning. In addition, MCC staff should identify opportunities for power infrastructure evaluations to provide insights into the mechanisms by which improved reliability of power interacts with firm and household-level outcomes over the short, medium, and long term, or to explore variation in such outcomes according to firm size or other factors.
Lesson Learned