IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp125-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy evaluation and democracy: Do they fit?

Author

Listed:
  • Sager, Fritz

Abstract

The papers assembled in this special issue shed light on the question of the interrelation between democracy and policy evaluation by discussing research on the use of evaluations in democratic processes. The collection makes a case for a stronger presence of evaluation in democracy beyond expert utilization. Parliamentarians prove to be more aquainted with evaluations than expected and the inclusion of evaluations in policy arguments increases the deliberative quality of democratic campaigns. In sum, evaluation and democracy turn out to be well compatible after all.

Suggested Citation

  • Sager, Fritz, 2018. "Policy evaluation and democracy: Do they fit?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-129.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:125-129
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917302379
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fritz Sager & Adrian Ritz & Kristina Bussmann, 2010. "Utilization-focused performance reporting," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 55-62, January.
    2. Carol H. Weiss, 1989. "Congressional committees as users of analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 411-431.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Lewallen & Sean M. Theriault & Bryan D. Jones, 2016. "Congressional dysfunction: An information processing perspective," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 179-190, June.
    2. Pannell, David J., 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-21.
    3. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.
    4. David L. Weimer, 2002. "JPAM reaches majority," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 355-358.
    5. Lundin, Martin & Öberg, PerOla, 2012. "Towards reason: political disputes, public attention and the use of expert knowledge in policymaking," Working Paper Series 2012:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    6. Emily McKenzie & Stephen Posner & Patricia Tillmann & Joanna R Bernhardt & Kirsten Howard & Amy Rosenthal, 2014. "Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 320-340, April.
    7. Eberli, Daniela, 2018. "Tracing the use of evaluations in legislative processes in Swiss cantonal parliaments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 139-147.
    8. Walker, Tom & Ryan, Jim & Kelley, Tim, 2010. "Impact Assessment of Policy-Oriented International Agricultural Research: Evidence and Insights from Case Studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1453-1461, October.
    9. Marra, Mita, 2018. "The ambiguities of performance-based governance reforms in Italy: Reviving the fortunes of evaluation and performance measurement," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 173-182.
    10. Martin Lundin & PerOla Öberg, 2014. "Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(1), pages 25-49, March.
    11. Pettas, Nikolaos & Giannikos, Ioannis, 2014. "Evaluating the delivery performance of public spending programs from an efficiency perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 140-150.
    12. E. Sam Overman & Anthony G. Cahill, 1994. "Information, market government, and health policy: A study of health data organizations in the states," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 435-453.
    13. Allison Gruner Gandhi & Erin Murphy-Graham & Anthony Petrosino & Sara Schwartz Chrismer & Carol H. Weiss, 2007. "The Devil Is in the Details," Evaluation Review, , vol. 31(1), pages 43-74, February.
    14. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    15. Collantes, Gustavo O, 2006. "The California Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate: A Study of the Policy Process, 1990-2004," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9030893m, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    16. Pirmin Bundi & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Evaluation use and learning in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 283-309, June.

    Corrections

    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:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:125-129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.