To date, the role of evaluation in parliaments has hardly been analyzed. This is a surprise as members of parliament are stakeholders par excellence, who could have an interest in evaluation. But do they? Through a systematic analysis of written questions and interrogations in Germany and Flanders we investigate MPs’ attention to evaluations. The following aspects are analyzed, from a comparative perspective: the content of questions on evaluation, the political profile of the MPs posing the questions, the share of questions on evaluation, and the distribution of questions over political parties, policy areas and over time.
Points for practitioners
The role and use of evaluation in the democratic process might be enhanced. On the one side members of parliament might wish to be better informed on evaluation methods as well as on possibilities for using evaluation results for accountability and learning purposes. On the other side evaluators might strive for strengthening the demand for evaluation in the policy-making process and not only public administration.
BussmannW (2008) The emergence of evaluation in Switzerland. Evaluation14(4): 499–506.
2.
BussmannW (2010) Evaluation of legislation: Skating on thin ice. Evaluation16(3): 279–293.
3.
CaspariAKevenhörsterPStockmannR (2003) Das Schweigen des Parlaments. Aus Politik und ZeitgeschichteB13–14: 7–14.
4.
ChelimskyE (2009) Integrating evaluation units into the political environment of government: The role of evaluation policy. New Directions for Evaluation123: 51–66.
5.
De Peuter B and Pattyn V (2009) Evaluation capacity: enabler or exponent of evaluation culture. In: Fouquet A and Méasson L (eds) L’évaluation des politiques publiques en Europe: cultures et futurs. Paris, L’Harmattan, pp. 133--142.
6.
FeldkampMF (2011) Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1990 bis 2010, Eine Veröffentlichung des Archivs des Deutschen Bundestages, Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft.
7.
FuruboJ-ESandahlR (2002) A diffusion perspective on global developments in evaluation. In: FuruboJ-ERistRSandahlR (eds) International Atlas of Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 1–23.
8.
Horber-PapazianK (2011) The power of illusion: Evaluative information and political steering in Valais. In: EliadisPFuruboJ-EJacobS (eds) Evaluation: Seeking Truth or Power?, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 131–147.
9.
JohnsonCTalbotC (2007) The UK Parliament and performance: Challenging or challenged?International Review of Administrative Sciences73(1): 113–131.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition, London: Routledge.
13.
McDavidJCHawthornL (2006) Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
MartinS (2011) Parliamentary questions, the behavior of legislators, and the function of legislatures: An introduction. Journal of Legislative Studies17(3): 259–270.
15.
NutleySMortonSJungTBoazA (2010) Evidence and policy in six European countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges. Evidence & Policy6(2): 131–144.
16.
NyborgK (1998) Some Norwegian politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis. Public Choice95: 381–401.
17.
PeetersD (2009) Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de rol van het Vlaams Parlement bij beleidsevaluaties. Meesterproef ingediend tot het verkrijgen van de graad van Master in het Overheidsmanagement en BeleidLeuven: KU Leuven.
18.
PeumansJ (2010) Plenum 2009–2014. Ons Vlaams Parlement in actie. Plenum 2009–2014, Brussel: Vlaams Parlement.
19.
PollittC (2005) Performance information for democracy: The missing link?Evaluation12(1): 38–55.
20.
PutV (2000) Doelmatigheidsonderzoek in het Rekenhof. Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Overheidsmanagement5(2–3): 19–24.
21.
RussoRWibergM (2010) Parliamentary questioning in 17 European parliaments: Some steps towards comparison. Journal of Legislative Studies16(2): 215–232.
Speer S (2012) Sectoral evaluation cultures: A comparison of the education and labor market sectors in Germany. In: Barbier J-C and Hawkins P (eds) Evaluation Cultures. Transaction Publishers, pp. 65--88.
24.
StiglitzJ (1998) Distinguished lecture on economics in government, the private uses of public interests: Incentives and institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives12(2): 3–22.
25.
StrømK (2000) Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research37: 261–289.
26.
VaroneFJacobS (2004) Institutionnalisation de l'Évaluation et Nouvelle Gestion Publique: Un État de Lieux Comparatif. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée11(2): 271–292.
27.
VaroneFJacobSde WinterL (2005) Polity, politics and policy evaluation in Belgium. Evaluation11(3): 253–273.
28.
Vlaams Parlement (2008) Gedachtewisseling over de nota van de Juridische Dienst van het Vlaams Parlement, over de mogelijke rol van het Vlaams Parlement inzake Decreetsevaluatie, Brussel: Vlaams Parlement, Commissie voor Binnenlandse Aangelegenheden, Bestuurszaken, Institutionele en Bestuurlijke Hervorming en Decreetsevaluatie.
