BehnR., 2001, Rethinking democratic accountability, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
2.
ChenH., and RossiP., 1989, ‘Issues in the theory-driven perspective’, inEvaluation and Program Planning, vol. 12, n. 4
3.
FuruboJ.E., RistR., and SandhalR., eds., 2002, International Atlas of Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
4.
FuruboJ.E., and SandahlR., 2002, ‘A diffusion perspective on Global Developments in Evaluation’, in FuruboJ.E., RistR., and SandhalR., eds. International Atlas of Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers
5.
MEANS collection, 1999, Evaluating Socio-economic Programmes, 6 vols., Luxemburg: Office for Official publications of the European Communities.
6.
OsborneD., and GaeblerT., 1992, Reinventing Government, Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.
7.
PattonM., 1986, Utilization-focused evaluation, Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
8.
PollittC., and BouckaertG., 2000, Public Sector Reform, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
PowellM., 1997, The Audit Explosion, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
10.
RyanB., 2003, ‘Death by evaluation? Reflections on monitoring and evaluation in Australia and New Zealand’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 3 no. 1
11.
SummaH., and ToulemondeJ., 2002, ‘Evaluation in the European Union: addressing complexity and ambiguity’, in FuruboJ.E., RistR., and SandhalR., eds. International Atlas of Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
12.
TurnerD., and WashingtonS., 2002, ‘Evaluation in the New Zealand Public Management System’, in FuruboJ.E., RistR., and SandhalR., eds. International Atlas of Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.
13.
WeissC., 1997, ‘Theory-based evaluation: past, present and future’, in RogD.J., and FournierD., Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, no. 76, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.