IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

View from an Oversight Agency on Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes


  • Susan Offutt


Central government budgets will be highly constrained in the wake of stimulus spending and recession. Fiscal imperatives will increasingly drive the need to reconsider government policy fundamentals. There will be greater scrutiny of public programmes, including those addressing rural development, as decision makers weigh future options for action. Questions will be raised about the efficacy and efficiency of public programmes in meeting their goals, and the results of objective evaluation will be at a premium. Assessment is within the competency of many entities, but national audit agencies offer advantages in performing evaluations to support public deliberation and dialogue. The audit agency perspective is one that is independent from the branch of government that is responsible for programme execution. This independence is necessary but not sufficient for ensuring that evaluations are fair and balanced. An effective audit agency adheres strictly to professional standards of review and referencing and adopts procedures to guarantee that all facts and analyses are thoroughly checked for accuracy. Thus, an audit agency operates with a consistency in approach that may distinguish it from other potential performers of evaluation. This implies that audit agencies may have an increasingly important role to play in evaluating rural development programmes. Copyright No claim to original US government works. Journal compilation (c) The Agricultural Ecomomics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists 2010.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Offutt, 2010. "View from an Oversight Agency on Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 10-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:1:p:10-14

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:1:p:10-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.