This paper is a survey which describes and explains in non-technical terms the logic behind various methodologies used in conducting retrospective quantitative evaluations of public policy programs. The programs usually have as their main targets firms or individuals who benefit from direct subsidies and/or training. It is hypothesised that because of the technical nature of quantitative evaluations, some of the public officials to whom these evaluations are intended, may find them too complex to comprehend fully. Hence, those officials might disregard them up front, or form a biased opinion (positive or negative) or even accept the results on their face value. However, because all evaluations are subjective by definition, the public officials should have some basic knowledge on the logic behind the design and context of evaluations. Only then, can they judge themselves on their worth, and consequently decide to what degree they will take into account their findings and recommendations. The paper initially discusses the issues of accountability and causality and then introduces policy evaluation as a two phase process: First, estimations are made on the potential impact of the policy in question and then a judgement is passed on the worth of the impacts estimated, through a cost benefit analysis. The estimations in turn, comprise of two related areas: the design of the evaluation and the model specification. In designs, one has to consider whether counterfactual populations are included or not and whether the impact variables are in cross-sectional or longitudinal format. In model specifications the evaluator must decide which independent control variables he will include in the regression model so as to account for selection bias. In cost benefit analysis decisions have to be made as to whether the analysis will be made at partial equilibrium or general equilibrium level and whether the judgements formulated will be based purely on efficiency grounds or using just distributional criteria as well. The paper recommends among others, that (a) public policy evaluations should establish clear rules of causation between the public intervention and the potential impact measured, (b) limitations in the estimation and cost benefit analysis phase must be explicitly stated and (c) retrospective evaluations should be conducted at closer intervals after the end of the intervention so as to reduce the external heterogeneity generated due to the time lag between the results produced and the on-going programs.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT) in its series Research Reports with number
90.
Length: Date of creation: 31 Jul 2002 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:fer:resrep:90
Contact details of provider: Postal: Arkadiankatu 7, P.O. Box 1279, FI-00101 Helsinki Phone: +358 40 304 5500 Fax: +358 9 4780 2929 Email: Web page: http://www.vatt.fi/ More information through EDIRC
Order Information: Email:
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Anita Niskanen).
Find related papers by JEL classification: B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: