The Rigor of Case-Based Causal Analysis: Busting Myths through a Demonstration

Abstract

Several myths persist within research and evaluation circles about the power and limitations of evaluation designs that use cases (or case studies) as their primary empirical material (case-based evaluation designs). Using a real-world application, this paper busts two myths regarding the use of case-based designs in evaluations that aim to answer effectiveness questions and unpack the relationships between interventions and observed changes in outcomes (broadly known as causal analysis): that case studies cannot be used for causal analysis and that it is impossible to generalize from case studies. Through a detailed demonstration of how the evaluation of the World Bank’s support to carbon finance has been designed and implemented, the paper undoes these preconceived ideas about the inferential, explanatory, and generalizability power of case-based evaluation designs.