Suchergebnisse

The primary objective of evaluation is to provide information that can provide a basis for developing or revising policies and programs, and is an inherently political activity. This article reflects on 10 years of scrutiny by evaluators of a contested policy in Australia—that of the mandatory detention of asylum seekers—and explores how evaluation informs political decisions, and how politics shapes the use of evaluation results. The evidence presented shows that evaluators need to be aware of, and manage, the political forces that shape the scope and outcomes of evaluations. Otherwise, evaluation may be little more than a tool for reinforcing existing power relations rather than a neutral and objective means of improving social policies or programs. Some strategies are suggested to help evaluators safeguard their neutrality and maximise the effectiveness of their contributions to political debates.

Following the global financial crisis, many countries have embarked on
fundamental reviews of their regulatory systems in an attempt to identify the
causes of the near collapse in financial systems and to pave the way for a
new approach to regulation. The focus of this paper concerns the intellectual
assumptions on which previous regulatory approaches have largely been built,
both in the UK and in a number of other countries. We examine the analysis
provided by the UK?s Turner Review (2009) which follows the ?market failure?
approach to regulation and we contrast this with the alternative ?state
failure? approach. Both approaches only offer partial and polarised views
into the causes of the crisis. We offer a synthesis and argue that a new
conceptual approach to the management of financial markets is required. The
essence of this new approach is the recognition that the state and regulation
are not external to the market. While this paper largely relates to the UK,
it provides potentially important lessons for many other countries.