There has been increasing demand for new evaluation methodology to rigorously measure the causality between the results and activities in the development cooperation sector, and through this to contribute to development effectiveness. The impact evaluation is a method that can complement the shortcomings of former evaluation methodologies by rigorously measuring the impact of a project through an experimental approach. Unlike existing evaluation methods, the causal relationship between results and activity is measured by using scientific experimental methodology and econometric techniques. In addition, impact evaluation can reveal the main factors of success/failure of the development activity. Thus the result of impact evaluation can be used for future policy design and contribute to the establishment of evidence-based policy making.
  Two factors supported the rise of impact evaluation. First, awareness of the role of evaluation to enhance development effectiveness has continued to rise following the Paris Declaration. The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation in 2011 also emphasized the role of evaluation as a tool for accountability and learning, managing for development results, and eventually the input for evidence-based policy making in the international community. Second, development economists contributed to the rise of impact evaluation by developing rigorous evaluation methodology such as experimental and quasi- experimental methodologies in the setting of developing countries.
  Development agencies have begun to adopt impact evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of development projects. The World Bank, as a leading agency for development effectiveness, has conducted a number of randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based impact evaluations to reveal the causality between development projects and results, and to provide evidence for future policy making. The ADB, USA and Japan also recently reformed their evaluation systems and adopted impact evaluation to scientifically demonstrate the results of development projects. In comparison to other donor agencies, Korea yet lacks related policies or a system for impact evaluation. But there is an increasing demand for impact evaluation to establish evidence-based policy making and enhance development effectiveness in Korea.
  The goal of this study is to examine the trends, policies and issues of impact evaluation, and to draw policy implications for the introduction of impact evaluation in Korea's ODA evaluation system. To achieve this goal, this study first compares and analyzes the policy, evaluation system and various cases of impact evaluation from other donor agencies such as the World Bank, ADB, USA, and Japan. Second, we analyze the major issues related to impact evaluation in details. Three issues are raised and analyzed: evaluability assessment, methodology design, and feedback of the result. Third, we conduct an impact evaluation using clustered-RCT to assess the performance of a health project supported by the Korean government in Vietnam. Finally, we analyze the tasks for introducing impact evaluation into Korea's ODA evaluation system at the level of an ODA-integrated evaluation system and implementing agency. This study also proposes a mid- to long-term roadmap to reform Korea's ODA evaluation system.
  In conclusion, this study emphasizes the introduction of impact evaluation to improve result management and enhance the effectiveness of Korea's ODA. The first step for that would be to build knowledge about the importance of rigid evaluation among stakeholders. In addition, a bottom-up evaluation planning system should be set to plan the evaluation from the beginning of the project. In the short term, it is necessary to introduce impact evaluation to the fields of education, health, and agricultural as these are the fields in which impact evaluation can be carried out relatively easily, thus strengthening the evaluation capacity of Korea. In the mid- to-long term, a strategic direction should be set up to establish policies supporting impact evaluation and systematic result-based management. It is necessary to carry out impact evaluation for large flagship projects and new projects that need to establish an evidence-based policy making process. This strategic impact evaluation system will ultimately contribute to the development effectiveness of Korea's ODA. 

서언

국문요약

제1장. 서론
1. 연구배경
2. 선행연구와의 차별성
3. 연구 범위 및 구성

제2장. ODA 성과평가와 영향력평가
1. ODA 평가의 시대별 변화
2. ODA 평가체제에서 영향력평가
3. 우리나라의 ODA 성과평가와 영향력평가
가. 우리나라의 ODA 평가체계
나. 영향력평가 정책 및 가이드라인
다. 영향력평가 현황

제3장. 국제사회의 영향력평가 정책과 체계
1. 세계은행그룹
가. 영향력평가 현황 및 정책
나. 평가수행체계
다. 영향력평가 사례분석
2. 아시아개발은행
가. 영향력평가 현황 및 정책
나. 평가수행체계
다. 영향력평가 사례분석
3. 미국
가. 영향력평가 현황 및 정책
나. 평가수행체계
다. 영향력평가 사례 분석
4. 일본
가. 영향력평가 현황 및 정책
나. 평가수행체계
다. 영향력평가 사례분석

제4장. 영향력평가 도입을 위한 주요 쟁점
1. 평가성(Evaluability) 사정
2. 평가방법 설계
가. 평가방법 설계 시 고려사항
나. 실험적 방법
다. 준실험적 방법
3. 평가결과 환류

제5장. 우리나라 ODA 사업의 영향력평가 사례: 베트남 보건사업
1. 연구배경
2. 사업 개요
3. 주요 쟁점 분석 및 절차
가. 평가성 사정
나. 평가방법 설계 및 시행
다. 평가결과 환류계획
4. 분석방법
5. 영향력평가결과 및 시사점

제6장. 우리나라 ODA 성과평가에 대한 시사점 및 결론
1. 영향력평가 도입을 위한 과제
가. ODA 통합평가체계 차원
나. 시행기관 차원
2. 요약 및 결론

참고문헌

Executive Summary