Independent evaluations should consider the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of investments as development solutions. MCC’s mission is to reduce poverty through economic growth, and it aims to use U.S. taxpayer resources in the most efficient way possible. The agency’s robust M&E system culminates in independent evaluations that intend to assess whether MCC investments were implemented according to plan, achieved their objectives, and did so cost-effectively—ideally evaluations assess the benefit streams and economic logic captured in the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that supported the investment decision ex ante. No CBA was developed for the Namibia RSRC investment during compact development, so the overall M&E framework, and evaluation design, were not guided by that model. Rather, the evaluation assessed whether the investment was implemented according to plan, and MCC’s Evaluation Management Committee and other stakeholders developed a set of evaluation questions to describe RSRC operations, who the patrons are, and what value they perceive from the facilities. The interim and final evaluation reports offer a rich exploration of these issues. However, in reflecting on agency learning and future application, MCC now recognizes a missed opportunity to explore the cost-effectiveness of the investment and generally assess whether the RSRC “solution” was appropriate given the development problems being targeted. Today, it would be unusual for investments of this size to be approved without an accompanying CBA; however, with or without an ex-ante CBA, future evaluations should assess cost-effectiveness and the extent to which investments addressed the underlying development problem as key parts of MCC’s effort to be accountable for and learn from each MCC investment.
Lesson Learned