Abstract
AbstractPolicy evaluations can be set up for multiple purposes including accountability, policy learning and policy planning. The question is, however, how these purposes square with politics itself. To date, there is little knowledge on how government ministers present the rationale of evaluations. This article is the first to provide a diachronic study of discourse about evaluation purposes and encompass a wide range of policy fields. We present an analysis of evaluation announcements in so-called ministerial policy notes issued between 1999 and 2019 by the Flemish government in Belgium. The research fine-tunes available evidence on catalysts for conducting evaluations. The Flemish public sector turns out to be a strong case where New Public Management brought policy evaluation onto the agenda, but this has not resulted in a prominent focus on accountability-oriented evaluations. We further show that policy fields display different evaluation cultures, albeit more in terms of the volume of evaluation demand than in terms of preferences for particular evaluation purposes.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Argyris, Chris. 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(3):363–375.
2. Barbier, Jean-Claude (ed.). 2012. Introduction. In Evaluation cultures. Sense-making in complex times, 1–18. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
3. Boswell, Christina (ed.). 2018. Performance measurement and the production of trust. In Manufacturing political trust: targets and performance indicators in public policy, 5–29. Cambridge: University Press.
4. Bovens, Mark. 2010. Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics 33(5):946–967.
5. Bovens, Mark, Paul ’T Hart, and Sanneke Kuipers. 2006. The politics of policy evaluation. In The Oxford handbook of public policy, ed. Robert E. Goodin, Michael Moran, and Martin Rein, 319–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献