IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/iiierp/2010_008.html

Institutionalisation of government evaluation: Balancing trade offs

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Gaarder

    (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation)

  • Bertha Briceno

    (World Bank)

Abstract

Carefully designed and implemented evaluations can improve people’s welfare, and enhance development effectiveness. The paper investigates institutions in Mexico, Chile,and Colombia, and shows that for the successful inception of an institutionalised system for evaluation, three common factors stand out: the existence of a democratic system with a vocal opposition, the existence of influential M&E champions to lead the process, and a clear powerful stakeholder. Mexico’s CONEVAL is the most independent of the three bodies, mainly due to the fact that it is reporting to an executive board of independent academics; Chile’s Dipres is the best placed in terms of enforcement, with its location within the Ministry of Finance and control of an independent budget ; and Colombia’s Sinergia helps promote a culture of utilization of evaluations as a project management tool. However, actual usage of M&E information and the resulting effect upon development effectiveness are the benchmarks of success. The paper concludes that an explicit and thoughtful process of assessing the needs, the focus, and the emphasis of the system should serve officials and champions to identify adequate arrangements for the particular country context and understand how to better respond to the forces pushing for the creation of new M&E units and bodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Gaarder & Bertha Briceno, 2011. "Institutionalisation of government evaluation: Balancing trade offs," 3ie Publications 2010-8, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:iiierp:2010_008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.3ieimpact.org/admin/pdfs_papers/Working_paper_8%20MG%20final.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Kim & Nowook Park, 2008. "Performance Budgeting in Korea," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 1-11.
    2. repec:wbk:wbpubs:6851 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Raphael Debets, 2008. "Performance Budgeting in the Netherlands," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20.
    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. Alex Blaszczynski, 2013. "A Critical Examination Of The Link Between Gaming Machines And Gambling-Related Harm," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 7(3), pages 55-76.
    2. Hardt, Lukasz & de Jong, Maarten, 2011. "Improving the quality of governance in Poland through performance based budgeting," MPRA Paper 42240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Artyom Jelnov & Yair Tauman, 2015. "Erratum to: Voting power and proportional representation of voters," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1049-1049, November.
    4. Dilip Kumar & Yogesh Kumar Chauhan & Ajay Shekhar Pandey & Ankit Kumar Srivastava & Raghavendra Rajan Vijayaraghavan & Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan & G. M. Shafiullah, 2025. "Optimal Sustainable Energy Management for Isolated Microgrid: A Hybrid Jellyfish Search-Golden Jackal Optimization Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-40, May.
    5. Turner, Graham M. & Dunlop, Michael & Candy, Seona, 2016. "The impacts of expansion and degradation on Australian cropping yields—An integrated historical perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 22-37.
    6. Lingfors, D. & Widén, J., 2016. "Development and validation of a wide-area model of hourly aggregate solar power generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 559-566.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ris:iiierp:2010_008. 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: 3ie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiieein.html .

    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.