Deliberative democracy has attracted increasing attention in political science and has been suggested as a normative ideal for evaluation. This article analyzes to what extent evaluations carried out in a highly government-driven manner can nevertheless contribute to deliberative democracy. This potential is examined by taking the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s environmental performance reviews as an example of an expert-led evaluative process built on the ideals of representative democracy. The author argues that although they are not participatory, these reviews lay the groundwork for deliberative democracy by “empowering” weaker actors within governments and by improving the factual basis for political debate and decision making. This example suggests that to enhance deliberative democracy, the evaluation process need not be highly inclusive, dialogical, and deliberative but that a broader view is needed, encompassing the indirect impacts of evaluation on power relations and on the knowledge basis on which decision making relies.
Baron, G. (1999). Evaluation, participation, apprentissage: Une conception de l’action publique avec rationalité limitée. Analyse et étude de cas d’une évaluation d’un programme européen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Rennes I.
2.
Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Beyeler, M. (2002, April). OECD surveillance and welfare states in Western Europe—Concepts and methods of a comparative research project. Paper presented at COST A15 Second Conference: “Welfare Reforms for the 21st Century,”Oslo, Norway.
4.
Blalock, A. B. (1999). Evaluation research and the performance management movement: From estrangement to useful integration?Evaluation, 5, 117-149.
5.
Boaz, A., & Hayden, C. (2002). Pro-active evaluators: Enabling research to be useful, usable and used. Evaluation, 8, 440-453.
6.
Cashore, B. (2003). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 15, 503-529.
7.
Davies, I. C. (1999). Evaluation and performance management in government. Evaluation, 5, 150-159.
8.
Dostal, J. M. (2005). Campaigning on expertise: How the OECD framed EU welfare and labour market policies—and why success could trigger failure. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 440-460.
9.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Eckley, N. (2001). Designing effective assessments: The role of participation, science and governance, and focus (Report of a workshop co-organized by the European Environment Agency and the Global Environmental Assessment Project, Copenhagen, 1-3 March 2001). European Environment Agency Environmental Issue Report 26. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
12.
Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998a). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Elster, J. (1998b). Introduction. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Feller, I. (2002). Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 435-452.
15.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
16.
Fetterman, D. M. (2000). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Fishkin, J. S., & Laslett, P. (Eds.). (2003). Debating deliberative democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18.
Floc’hlay, B., & Plottu, E. (1998). Democratic evaluation: From empowerment evaluation to public decision-making. Evaluation, 4, 261-277.
19.
Froger, G., & Oberti, P. (2002). Gouvernance et développement durable: L’aide multicritère à la décision participative. Sciences de la Société, 57, 57-74.
20.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-normal science. Available at http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc_entries/PstNormSc.pdf
21.
Gambetta, D. (1998). “Claro!” An essay on discursive machismo. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 19-43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Gregory, A. (2000). Problematizing participation: A critical review of approaches to participation in evaluation theory. Evaluation, 6, 179-199.
23.
Guba, Y. S., & Lincoln, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Habermas, J. (1984a). Theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Oxford, UK: Polity.
25.
Habermas, J. (1984b). Theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: System and lifeworld. Oxford, UK: Polity.
26.
Hanberger, A. (2001). Policy and program evaluation, civil society, and democracy. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 211-228.
27.
Hansson, F. (2000, November). Research evaluation: Controlling or developing the production of knowledge. The peer review system in the changing knowledge production system. Paper presented at Evaluation 2000, conference of the American Evaluation Asociation, Waikiki, Hawaii.
28.
Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293-314.
29.
Hisschemöller, M., Tol, R. S. J., & Vellinga, P. (2001). The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integrated Assessment, 2, 57-72.
30.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Lehtonen, M. (2005a). Environmental policy evaluation in the service of sustainable development: Influence of the OECD environmental performance reviews from the perspective of institutional economics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.
MacDonald, B. (1976). Evaluation and the control of education. In R. Tawney (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications (pp. 125-136). London: Macmillan.
34.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52, 943-969.
35.
Marcussen, M. (2001, June). The OECD: Transnational regulation through the idea-game. Paper prepared for the SCANCOR Workshop Transnational Regulation and the Transformation of States, Stanford, CA.
36.
McKie, L. (2003). Rhetorical spaces: Participation and pragmatism in the evaluation of community health work. Evaluation, 9, 307-324.
37.
Niemi, H., & Kemmis, S. (1999). Communicative evaluation: Evaluation at the crossroads. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 4(1), 55-64.
38.
Norgaard, R. B. (1994). Development betrayed: The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. London: Routledge.
39.
O’Connor, M., van Hove, S., O’Neill, J., & Hue, C. (2001/2002). Le modèle politique de la démocratie délibérative. C3ED, Département de Sciences Economiques et Management. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. EEE-SDP Module “Gouvernance.”
40.
O’Neill, J. (2001, July). Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Paper presented at the EC High Level Scientific Conference Frontiers 1: Fundamental Issues of Ecological Economics’, Cambridge, UK.
41.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997, November 17). Workshop on the second cycle of reviews: Lessons from the first cycle of reviews (Document prepared by the Finnish Delegation). Paris: Author.
42.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). OECD environmental performance reviews: Second cycle work plan (EPOC Document ENV/EPOC [98]21). Paris: Author.
43.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Peer review: An OECD tool for co-operation and change. Paris: Author.
44.
Özkaynak, B., Devine, P., & Rigby, D. (2001, July). Ecological economics: Is it an alternative to neoclassical environmental economics? Paper presented at the EC High Level Scientific Conference Frontiers 1: Fundamental Issues of Ecological Economics, Cambridge, UK.
45.
Parkinson, J. (2001, July). Legitimacy and deliberative democracy. Paper presented at the EC High Level Scientific Conference Frontiers 1: Fundamental Issues of Ecological Economics, Cambridge, UK.
46.
Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1977). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. In D. Hamilton, D. Jenkins, C. King, B. MacDonald, & M. Parlett (Eds.), Beyond the numbers game: A reader in educational evaluation (pp. 6-22). London: Macmillan.
47.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 367-379.
49.
Perrin, B. (1999). Performance measurement: Does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 101-111.
50.
Perrin, B. (2002a). How to—and how not to—evaluate innovation. Evaluation, 8, 13-28.
51.
Perrin, B. (2002b, October). Towards a new view of accountability. Paper presented at the conference of the European Evaluation Society Three Movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence, Seville, Spain.
52.
Ryan, K. (2004). Serving public interests in educational accountability: Alternative approaches to democratic evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 443-460.
53.
Sager, T. (2001). A planning theory perspective on the EIA. In T. Hilding-Rydevik (Ed.), EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries (Nordregio Report 2001:6). Stockholm, Sweden: Nordregio.
54.
Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6, 433-454.
55.
Segerholm, C. (2003). Researching evaluation in national (state) politics and administration: A critical approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 353-372.
56.
Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. London: Routledge.
57.
Stake, R. E. (Ed.). (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
58.
Stecher, B. M., & Davis, A. W. (1987). How to focus an evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
Strang, D., & Chang, P. M. Y. (1993). The International Labour Organisation and the welfare state: Institutional effects on national welfare spending, 1960-1980. International Organization, 47, 235-262.
60.
Vedung, E. (1991). Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning [Evaluation in politics and administration]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
61.
Weiss, C. H. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In A. S. Byrk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation (New directions for program evaluation, Vol. 17, pp. 3-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
