Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System

The document outlines a two-step process for measuring change in financial sector development: assessing causality and contribution (Step 5) and developing a research agenda (Step 6). It emphasizes a pragmatic, evidence-based approach to attribution, acknowledging that FSDs act as market facilitators and cannot claim full credit for changes. The guide details 'bottom-up' (intervention-focused) and 'top-down' (sector-level) analysis, offering a menu of methodologies ranging from light-touch monitoring and theory-based approaches (e.g., contribution analysis, outcome harvesting) to rigorous quantitative statistical methods (e.g., experimental and quasi-experimental designs). It also defines the role of research in filling knowledge gaps, informing strategy, and contributing to global learning on the links between financial inclusion, economic growth, and poverty reduction.

• FSD programmes face significant challenges in establishing direct attribution because they operate as market facilitators, working through partners and in combination with other external factors such as technological changes and stakeholder behaviour.
• The guide advocates for a pragmatic approach to causality, aiming to 'convince a reasonable but sceptical observer' by applying resources proportional to the importance and complexity of the causal pathway being tested.
• Causality analysis should be conducted using both bottom-up approaches, which test how specific interventions lead to outcomes, and top-down approaches, which examine broader sectoral changes and their impact on livelihoods.
• Methodologies for measuring causality are divided into theory-based approaches, which rely on logical thinking and quality evidence (e.g., contribution analysis, process tracing), and quantitative statistical approaches, which use counterfactuals to isolate the intervention's impact (e.g., experimental and quasi-experimental designs).
• FSDs should implement a research agenda to address knowledge gaps, improve intervention design, and contribute to global understanding of how financial sector development reduces poverty and inequality.
• The document suggests that FSDs should be open to researching and reporting failures, as this provides critical learning and demonstrates that the programme is taking necessary risks to achieve additionality.

APA

FSD Africa (2016). Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys_Chp5b_sngl_LR.pdf

Chicago

FSD Africa. Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System. 2016. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys_Chp5b_sngl_LR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=FSD Africa |title=Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System |date=January 2016 |url=https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys_Chp5b_sngl_LR.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{fsdafrica2016developing, author = {{FSD Africa}}, title = {{Developing an Impact-Oriented Measurement System}}, institution = {FSD Africa}, year = {2016}, month = jan, url = {https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/11655-Impact-Oriented-Sys_Chp5b_sngl_LR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }