The Centre for Economic Policy and Development Impact Evaluation (CEPDIME): Improving lives through evidence.
The global development community now increasingly recognizes that well-designed public policies and development programs do not automatically yield better outcomes. The missing ingredient is often rigorous evidence: empirical proof about what works, for whom, and under what conditions. The Centre for Economic Policy and Development Impact Evaluation (CEPDIME) has positioned itself at the nexus of research, policy engagement, and institutional learning, with a clear mission: to improve lives through evidence-based economic policy.
As such, at the centre we operate on the principle that decisions about public policy and development interventions should rest on rigorous causal evidence, rather than on intuition, ideology, or untested assumptions. We produce, synthesize, and disseminate empirical evidence that policymakers, donors, and implementing partners can use to design, refine, and scale interventions that genuinely improve welfare, reduce poverty, and expand opportunity.
Mission and Core Purpose
At its core, the Centre embodies three strategic commitments:
- Rigorous Evaluation
To generate high-quality evidence on the causal impact of policies and programs. Rather than limiting itself to descriptive statistics or correlations, the centre employs experimental and quasi-experimental methods to isolate causal effects thereby identifying whether a program led to an outcome rather than simply co-occurred with it. - Policy Relevance
Evidence is only useful if it speaks to real policy choices. The centre works closely with national governments, international agencies, and civil society to ensure that research questions are pertinent to ongoing policy debates. This means co-designing evaluations with partners, tailoring research outputs to decision-making timelines, and translating findings into actionable recommendations. - Capacity Strengthening
Improving lives through evidence is sustainable only if local institutions can generate and use evidence themselves. The centre thus invests in building skills among policymakers, statisticians, and research institutions especially in developing countries where analytical capacity has historically been limited.
Typical Thematic Areas
The centre focuses on high-stakes policy domains that affect broad populations, including:
- Poverty and Social Protection
Evaluating cash transfer programs, public works schemes, and social insurance mechanisms to determine effects on income security, consumption, labor supply, and economic resilience. - Education and Human Capital
Assessing interventions such as teacher training, early childhood programs, and school feeding to determine effects on learning outcomes, attendance, and long-term earnings potential. - Health and Nutrition
Analysing clinic performance, immunization campaigns, maternal and child health interventions, and nutrition programs to understand impacts on morbidity, mortality, and well-being. - Labor Markets and Economic Inclusion
Studying job training, microcredit, entrepreneurship support, and labor regulation reforms to gauge impacts on employment, earnings, and investment. - Governance and Public Service Delivery
Investigating reforms in public financial management, anti-corruption measures, decentralization, and digital service platforms to ascertain changes in efficiency, accountability, and public trust.
Methodological Rigor: From Theory to Causal Inference
The centre’s methodological foundation is anchored in impact evaluation, an approach designed to answer the counterfactual question: what would have happened in the absence of the intervention?
Key methodological approaches include:
- Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs):
Where feasible, the centre uses random assignment to construct credible comparison groups. RCTs are widely regarded as the gold standard for causal inference because they ensure that differences in outcomes can be attributed to the program itself rather than to confounding factors. - Quasi-Experimental Designs:
In many cases, randomization is not feasible for ethical, political, or practical reasons. The centre then employs methods such as difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, instrumental variables, and propensity score matching to approximate causal inference. - Mixed-Methods Approaches:
Quantitative evaluation is often complemented with qualitative research interviews, focus groups, case studies to unpack the mechanisms behind observed effects and to understand the lived experiences of program beneficiaries.
The centre also emphasizes robust data practices, including the use of administrative data, household surveys, geospatial information, and real-time performance monitoring systems. It upholds strict standards for transparency, pre-analysis plans, and data archiving to enhance credibility and reproducibility.
Engagement with Policymakers and Practitioners
A defining feature of an impact-oriented policy centre is engagement rather than observation. Rather than operating as an isolated institution, the centre integrates into policy processes through:
- Co-Design of Evaluations:
Policymakers and implementers participate in defining research questions and metrics of success, ensuring that evaluations align with program logic and decision needs. - Policy Briefs and Syntheses:
Findings are translated into concise, accessible knowledge products such as policy briefs that highlight key results, policy implications, and cost-effectiveness insights. These briefs are distributed to government ministries, donors, and civil society partners. - Workshops and Training:
The centre organizes capacity-building workshops for government officials, statisticians, and researchers. These sessions focus on evaluation design, data analysis, interpretation of results, and use of evidence in policymaking. - Public Dissemination and Advocacy:
Through seminars, conferences, and media engagement, the centre elevates and amplifies evidence into public debate, encouraging transparency and accountability in policy decisions.
Institutional Partnerships and Networks
To maximize impact, the centre collaborates with a range of partners:
- National Governments:
Ministries of Finance and Planning, Trade, Health, Education, and labour, gender and social development often partner to pilot and evaluate programs with real budgetary and administrative implications. - Multilateral Organizations:
Entities such as the World Bank, United Nations agencies, and regional development banks provide technical and financial support while also benefiting from evidence generated. - Academic Institutions:
Universities and research institutes contribute disciplinary expertise and help train the next generation of evaluators and policy analysts. - Civil Society and Community Groups:
Local partners are vital for understanding context, facilitating data collection, and ensuring that evaluations reflect the experiences of marginalized populations.
The centre may also join international impact evaluation networks—sharing data, methodologies, and findings across countries and sectors.
Measuring Success: Impact on Policy and Society
The ultimate goal is not academic publication per se, but tangible improvements in people’s lives. Measures of success therefore include:
- Policy Adoption:
Evidence leads to adoption of improved program designs, scaling of successful interventions, or reform of ineffective practices. - Resource Allocation:
Governments and donors allocate resources more efficiently based on cost-effectiveness evidence. - Outcome Changes:
Evidence helps drive measurable gains, higher school attendance, better health outcomes, increased incomes, reduced vulnerability, gainful employment and higher wages, and enhanced equity. - Institutionalization of Evidence Use:
The centre contributes to the creation of formal evaluation units within government, adoption of evidence standards, and integration of evaluation into budgeting and planning cycles.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
While the potential for impact is significant, the work is not without challenges:
- Context Specificity:
Evidence from one setting may not be generalizable. Understanding local context is essential when interpreting results and recommending policy transfers. - Political Dynamics:
Evidence can challenge entrenched interests. The centre navigates political sensitivities and safeguards its independence while remaining relevant. - Ethical Foundation:
Evaluations must uphold to ethical standards, protecting participants’ rights and ensuring that vulnerable groups are neither exploited nor harmed by research activities. - Capacity Constraints:
In many low-income settings, data systems and analytical capabilities are limited. Building sustainable capacity requires long-term commitment and investment in capacity building.
The Centre serves as an indispensable bridge between rigorous research and real-world decision-making. By prioritizing causal evidence, engaging directly with policymakers, strengthening local analytical capacity, and translating insights into actionable recommendations, such a centre contributes meaningfully to better public policies and improved human welfare. Its work reflects a broader commitment within the development community to move from assumptions to evidence, and from good intentions to measurable progress.
Blog-authored by the Centre for Economic Policy and Development Impact Evaluation (CEPDIME). Generating evidence for policy action.