The overall aim of this article is to develop conceptual tools and practical guidelines for evaluating the effects of public policy and program on civil society and democracy, and to analyze three broad ways of taking evaluation to the people. The terms “civil society” and “democracy” are ambiguous, referring to different notions in various discourses. The article demonstrates how different notions (ideal-types) of civil society and democracy can be useful in assessing the effects of public policies and programs. Finally, three broad approaches to evaluation are analyzed as tools for taking evaluation to the people. I argue that, in light of the legitimacy crisis, the “mediating evaluation approach” is the most promising approach today. However, the role of the evaluator and the notion of both civil society and democracy differ among the three approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austen-Smith, D. (1992). Strategic models of talk in political decision-making. International Political Science Review, 13, 45-58.
2.
Austen-Smith, D., & Riker, W. H. (1987). Asymmetric information and the coherence of legislation. American Political Science Review, 81, 897-918.
3.
Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy, and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.
4.
Barber, B. (1999). Clansmen, consumers, and citizens: Three takes on civil society. In R. K. Fullinwider (Ed.), Civil society, democracy, and civic renewal (pp. 9-29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Carver, T. (2000). Civil society and class: Centrality and occlusion in discourse and practice. Paper presented at the International Political Science Association XVIII World Congress, Quebec City, Canada.
7.
Dean, J. (1997). The reflective solidarity of democratic feminism. In J. Dean (Ed.), Feminism and the new democracy: Resiting the political (pp. 244-263). London: Sage.
8.
Deleon, P. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
9.
Dryzek, J. S. (1996). Democracy in capitalist times: Ideals, limits, and struggles. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
Dryzek, J., & Torgerson, D. (1993). Democracy and the policy sciences: A progress report. Policy Sciences, 26, 127-137.
13.
Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil society: The critical history of an idea. New York, NY: NYU Press.
15.
Farazmand, A. (1999). The elite question: Toward a normative elite theory of organization. Administration & Society, 31, 321-360.
16.
Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26, 165-187.
17.
Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall Publishers.
18.
Forester, J. (1985a). Critical theory and planning practice. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 202-227). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Forester, J. (1985b). The policy analysis-critical theory affair: Wildavsky and Habermas as bedfellows? In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 258-280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Frazer, E., & Lacey, N. (1993). The politics of community: A feminist critique of the liberal-communitarian debate. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
21.
Green, C. J. (2000). Challenges in practicing deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Gregory, A. (2000). Problematizing participation: A critical review of approaches to participation in evaluation theory. Evaluation, 6, 179-199.
23.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Habermas, J. (1989). The public sphere. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Jürgen Habermas on society and politics (pp. 231-236). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
25.
Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21-30). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Hanberger, A. (1997). Prospects for local politics: A historical policy analysis of the interplay of public policy and legitimacy. (Thesis with summary in English) Department of Political Science, Umeå University.
27.
Hanberger, A. (1999). Final report from the evaluation of a medical information system (in Swedish) [Online]. Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research, Umeå University. Available at: www.infomedica.nu. Accessed January 10, 1999.
28.
Hanberger, A. (2001a). Democratic implications of public organizations (manuscript).
29.
Hanberger, A. (2001b). What is the policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy evaluation. Evaluation, 7, 45-62.
30.
Hanberger, A., Schild, I., & Hamilton, D. (2001). Academy-industry collaboration: Mid-term evaluation of the Knowledge Foundation’s knowledge exchange programme. Umeå, Sweden: Center for Business and Policy Studies and Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research, Umeå University.
31.
Hansen, P. (2000). Europeans only? Essays on identity politics and the European Union. Umeå,Sweden: Department of Political Science, Umeå University.
32.
Healey, P. (1993). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 233-253). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
Held, D. (1989). Political theory and the modern state: Essays on state, power and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
34.
Henry, G. T. (2000). Benefits and limitations of deliberation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Kelly, R. M. (2000). A feminist democratic civil society and the issue of violence. Paper delivered at the International Political Science Association in Quebec, Canada, July 31-August 5, 2000.
37.
Kemp, R. (1985). Planning, public hearings, and the politics of discourse. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 177-201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
Khakee, A. (1999). Participatory scenarios for sustainable development. Foresight, 1, 229-240.
39.
Khakee, A. (2000). Reading plans as an exercise in evaluation. Evaluation, 6, 119-136.
40.
MacKelly, R., & Simms, M. (2000). A feminist democratic civil society and the issue of violence. Paper presented at the International Political Science Association XVIII World Congress, Quebec City, Canada.
41.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Pateman, C. (1997). The fraternal social contract. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 45-59). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
43.
Pelczyniski, Z. A. (1984). The state and civil society: Studies in Hegel’s political philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Premfors, R., Sandqvist, J., & Sanne, M. (1994). Demokrati i storstad-Stadsdelsnamnder i Stockholm. Carlssons, Stockholm.
45.
Przeworski, A. (1998). Deliberation and ideological domination. In E. Jon (Ed.), Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189-214.
48.
Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue and deliberation. New Directions For Evaluation, 85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
50.
Sullivan, M. W. (1999). Making civil society work: Democracy as a problem of civic cooperation. In R. K. Fullinwider (Ed.), Civil society, democracy, and civic renewal (pp. 31-54). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
51.
Taylor, C. (1997). Invoking civil society. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (pp. 66-77). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
52.
Tönnies, F. (1887/1965). Community & society: Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft. East Lansing, MI: The Michigan State University Press.
53.
Torgerson, D. (1986). Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 19, 33-59.
54.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
