Search results

This book appears at an opportune time in the history of evaluation. Its detailed and up-to-date account of the organization and use of evaluation in eight Western, democratic countries--Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Holland, Norway, and Switzerland--shows how evaluation functions at different levels of development. Focusing on the national or federal level of government, this volume presents a systematic and comparative view of eight nations at different stages of the development, institutionalization, and utilization of evaluations. All of these original contributions have been written by academics and government officials involved in the production and use of evaluation findings. Each shows how their respective country has moved to institutionalize evaluation at the federal level, and each explores the reasons for that institutionalization. Among them are managerial accountability, the increased complexity of the decisions facing policymakers, federally sponsored social change that needs to be tracked and assessed, and the increasing recognition that political power comes to those who possess such information. Program Evaluation and the Management of Government is tightly integrated. The contributions share coherence, a common analytic framework and use of key terms, resulting from the authors' three-year dialogue as members of the Working Group on Policy and Program Evaluation sponsored by the International Institute for Administrative Sciences located in Belgium. Their shared commitment to working together has given us the first systematic effort to assess evaluation across such a large number of countries. It will be of interest to applied social scientists and policymakers, especially those interested in comparative research.

"Immer wieder wird von Bildungsforschern die Sorge geäußert, daß ihre Ratschläge und Appelle von politischen Entscheidungsträgern weder gehört noch richtig verstanden werden." Gründe für diese Verständigungsschwierigkeiten sieht der Autor wie folgt: "1. Bildungsforscher und politische Entscheidungsträger sind in unterschiedlichen institutionellen Bereichen mit unterschiedlichen Kulturen und unterschiedlichen Anreizstrukturen zu Hause; 2. Bildungsforscher wissen wenig über die Steuerung des öffentlichen Sektors und es sieht auch nicht danach aus, daß sie in Zukunft mehr darüber wissen werden; 3. Bildungsforscher haben weitgehend ' ethnozentrische' Ansichten darüber, welchen Beitrag sie zum Informationsbedarf in der Politik leisten können und dürfen; 4. Im politischen Prozeß hängen der Informationsbedarf und die Handlungsträger von den Merkmalen der entsprechenden Phase des politischen Zyklus ab; 5. Die Bildungspolitik hat einen großen Informationsbedarf zur Frage, wann und warum man ein bestimmtes politisches Instrument anderen politischen Instrumenten vorziehen soll. Zu dieser Art der Analyse schweigen sich die Bildungsforscher aus." (Textauszug)

AbstractBased on the prior chapters, this postscript pulls together a framework for improving the interface between evaluation and development.

ABSTRACTAuditing and Evaluation are two strategies which governments may use to ascertain if existing policies and programs are being administered as they ought. They provide critical information by which to determine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government action and are the basis for holding accountable those responsible for the government policies and programs. The analysis compares the strengths and weaknesses of auditing and evaluation as means of monitoring accountability. Three types of accountability are discussed. Auditing makes its strongest contributing to managerial accountability through a focus on fiscal or regulatory issues.