National Evaluation Societies (NES) are situated at the intersection between Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) supply and demand. To date, little research has explored NES and their potential for strengthening national M&E. This study addresses this gap, examining perceived NES performance relevant to organizational and policy-oriented goals while identifying factors related to that performance. The study draws upon data from a survey of 40 NES in 37 low- and middle-income countries. Qualitative Comparative Analysis identifies multiple pathways to well-performing NES and focuses on the interplay between the context in which evaluation societies operate and their organizational characteristics. The findings underline the importance of political openness while also demonstrating that some NES manage to perform well even in challenging political environments.
AndrewsK. T. (2001). Social movements and policy implementation: The Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on poverty, 1965 to 1971. American Sociological Review, 66, 71–95.
2.
AndrewsK. T.EdwardsB. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479–506.
3.
AndrewsK. T.EdwardsB. (2005). The organizational structure of local environmentalism. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10, 213–234.
4.
AstburyB.LeeuwF. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 363–381.
5.
Ba TallO. (2009). The role of national, regional and international evaluation organizations in strengthening country-led monitoring and evaluation systems. In SegoneM. (Ed.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 119–143). New York, NY: UNICEF.
6.
BefaniB.LedermannS.SagerF. (2007). Realistic evaluation and QCA: Conceptual parallels and an empirical application. Evaluation, 13, 171–192.
7.
BrymanA. (1989). Research methods and organization studies. London, UK: Routledge.
8.
CressD. M.SnowD. A. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resources, benefactors, and the viability of homeless social movement organizations. American Sociological Review, 61, 1089–1109.
9.
CressD. M.SnowD. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1063–1104.
EdwardsM. (1999). NGO performance what breeds success? New evidence from South Asia. World Development, 27, 2361–2374.
12.
EdwardsB.McCarthyJ. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In SnowD.SouleS.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
13.
EisingerP. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115–130.
14.
EmmeneggerP. (2011). Job security regulations in Western democracies: A fuzzy set analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 50, 336–364.
15.
FissP. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393–420.
16.
GanzM. (2000). Resources and resourcefulness: Strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture 1959-1966. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1003–1062.
17.
GarciaJ.ParkerR. (2011). Resource mobilization for health advocacy: Afro-Brazilian religious organizations and HIV prevention and control. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 1930–1938.
18.
GordilloG.AnderssonK. (2004). From policy lessons to policy actions: Motivation to take evaluation seriously. Public Administration and Development, 24, 305–320.
19.
GrofmanB.SchneiderC. (2009). An introduction to crisp-set QCA, with a comparison to binary logistic regression. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 662–672.
20.
HellstromJ. (2011). Conditional hypotheses in comparative social science: Mixed-method approaches to middle-sized data analysis. Methodological Innovations Online, 6, 71–102.
21.
HolvoetN.DewachterSGildemynM. (2011). Strengthening national evaluation societies: An exploratory survey. Antwerp, Belgium: Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp.
22.
HolzackerR. (2012). National and transnational strategies of LGBT civil society organizations in different political environments: Modes of interaction in Western and Eastern Europe for equality. Comparative European Politics, 10, 23–47.
23.
JoachimJ. (2003). Framing issues and seizing opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and women’s rights. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 247–274.
24.
KallebergA. L.MoodyJ. (1996). Human resource management and organizational performance. In KallebergA. L.KnokeD.MarsdenP. V.SpaethJ. L. (Eds.), Organizations in America (pp. 113–129). London, England: Sage.
25.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
26.
KaufmannD.KraayA.MastruzziM. (2012). Worldwide governance indicators, Retrived November 5, 2011, fromwww.govindicators.org
27.
KrielL. (2006). How to build evaluation associations and networks: Learning from the pioneers. In SegoneM.OcampoA. (Eds.), Creating and developing evaluation organizations: Lessons learned from Africa, Americas, Asia, Australasia and Europe (pp. 161–191). Lima, Peru: Desco.
28.
LedermanS. (2012). Exploring the necessary conditions for evaluation use in program change. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 159–178.
29.
LoveA. J.RussonC. (2000). Building a worldwide evaluation community: Past, present and future. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 449–459.
30.
MarxA. (2010). Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specification: Benchmarks for future csQCA applications. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4, 138–158.
31.
MarxA.DussaA. (2011). Crisp-set QCA (csQCA), contradictions and consistency benchmarks for model specification. Methodological Innovations, 6, 97–142.
32.
McAdamD. (1999). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In McAdamD.McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. Y. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 23–40). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MertensD. M.RussonC. (2000). A proposal for the international organization for cooperation in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 275–283.
34.
MihalacheR. (2009). Evaluation networking in Romania. Evaluation, 15, 473–482.
35.
PattonM. Q. (2010). Future trends in evaluation. In SegoneM. (Ed.), From policies to results. Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems (pp. 44–57). New York, NY: UNICEF.
36.
PritchettL. (2002). It pays to be ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation. Policy Reform, 5, 251–269.
37.
QuesnelJ. (2006). The importance of evaluation associations and networks. In SegoneM.OcampoA. (Eds.), Creating and developing evaluation organizations: Lessons learned from Africa, Americas, Asia, Australasia and Europe (pp. 13–29). Lima, Peru: Desco.
38.
RaginC.SonnettJ. (2004). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In KroppS.MinkenbergM. (Eds.), Vergleichen in der politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
39.
RaginC. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
RaginC.KrissA. D.SeanD. (2006). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson, Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
41.
RihouxB.LobeB. (2009). The case for QCA: Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In ByrneD.Ragin C. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 222–243). London, England: Sage.
42.
RihouxB.MarxA. (2013). Qualitative comparative analysis at 25: State of play and agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 167–171.
43.
RihouxB.RaginC. (Eds.) (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
RussonC.LoveA. J. (2003). The inaugural assembly of the international organization for cooperation in evaluation: The realization of a utopian dream. Occasional paper series 20. Michigan, MI: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
45.
SagerF.AndereggenC. (2012). Dealing with complex causality in realist synthesis: The promise of qualitative comparative analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 60–78.
46.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy sets. Comparative Sociology, 9, 397–418.
47.
SegoneM. (2008a). Evidence-based policy making and the role of M&E within the new aid environment. In SegoneM. (Ed.), Bridging the gap (pp. 16–45). New York, NY: UNICEF.
48.
SegoneM. (2008b). Bridging the gap. New York, NY: UNICEF.
49.
SegoneM. (2009). Country-led monitoring and evaluations systems: Better evidence, better policies, better evaluation results. New York, NY: UNICEF.
50.
SegoneM. (2010a). Moving from policies to results. In SegoneM. (Ed.), From policies to results. Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems (pp. 22–43). New York, NY: UNICEF.
51.
SegoneM. (2010b). From policies to results. Developing capacities for country monitoring and evaluation systems. New York, NY: UNICEF.
52.
SegoneM.OcampoA. (Eds.)(2006). Creating and developing evaluation organizations: Lessons learned from Africa, Americas, Asia, Australasia and Europe. Lima, Peru: Desco.
53.
SmithN.BrandonP.HwalekM.KistlerS.LabinS.RugJ. Thoma V. Yarnal L. (2011). Looking ahead: The future of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 565–599.
54.
TarrowS. (1994). Power in movement. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
55.
The Presidents Panel. (1999). Creating a worldwide evaluation community. Occasional paper series 15. Michigan, MI: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
56.
WeissC. (1987). Where politics and evaluation research meet. In PalumboD. (Ed.), The politics of program evaluation (pp. 47–69). London, UK: Sage Publications.
