This article argues that economists have a potentially valuable contribution to make to evaluation in the social welfare field, provided they are willing to embrace a more flexible and eclectic approach to economic evaluation. It contrasts the perspectives of mainstream economists and other evaluators working in this field, which often appear to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. This may explain why the role of economists often seems to be marginalized - the ends don't meet. Although different approaches to evaluation are to some extent complementary, the article argues that economists can learn from other perspectives on evaluation and should consider adapting or building on more conventional approaches to economic evaluation, where appropriate. This would help to improve the validity and generalizability of their results and would also facilitate more co-operative working with evaluators from other disciplines - helping to make ends meet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bagley, C. and C. Pritchard (1998) `The Reduction of Problem Behaviours in At-Risk Youth: An Experimental Study of School Social Work with Cost-Benefit Analyses' , Child and Family Social Work4(4): 219-226 .
2.
Barr, A. and P. Hashagen (1996) Monitoring and Evaluation of Community Development: a Report for the Voluntary Activity Unit. Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) Scottish Community Development Centre .
3.
Byford, S. (2001) `The Application of Health Economic Techniques to Social Welfare' , in A. O'Neil and J. Lewis (eds) Cost-effectiveness and Independent Living, Proceedings of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation conference in June 2000. York: York Publishing Services.
4.
Byford, S. and T. Sefton (2002) First Aid: Lessons from Health Economics for Economic Evaluation in Social Welfare, LSE Health and Social Care Discussion Paper No 4. London: LSE .
5.
Chen, H. (1990) Theory-driven Evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
6.
Clarke, A. (1999) Evaluation Research. London: Sage .
7.
Coast, J. (1999) `The Appropriate Uses of Qualitative Methods in Health Economics' , Health Economics8(4): 345-353 .
8.
Connell, J. P., A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss, eds (1995) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute .
9.
Drummond, M. F., B. J. O'Brien, G. L. Stoddart and G. Torrance (1997) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press .
10.
Glennerster, H., M. Matsaganis and P. Owens with S. Hancock (1994) Implementing GP Fundholding: Wild Card or Winning Hand? Buckingham: Open University Press .
11.
Gold, M. (1996) Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press .
12.
Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln (1989) Fourth-Generation Evaluation. London: Sage .
13.
HM Treasury (1997) Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: HMSO .
14.
Holtermann, S. (1998) Weighing It Up. York: York Publishing Services .
15.
House, E. (2000) `The Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis' , Evaluation6(1): 79-86 .
16.
Jan, S. (1998) `A Holistic Approach to the Economic Evaluation of Health Programs Using Institutionalist Methodology' , Social Science and Medicine47(10): 1565-1572 .
17.
Knapp, M. (1984) The Economics of Social Care. London: Macmillan .
18.
Knapp, M. (1998) `Making Music Out of Noise - the Cost Function Approach to Evaluation' , British Journal of Psychiatry173 (suppl. 36): 7-11 .
19.
Kushner, S. (1996) `Limits of Constructivism in Evaluation' , Evaluation2(2): 189-200 .
20.
Mannion, R. and N. Small (1999) `Postmodern Health Economics' , Health Care Analysis7(3): 255-272 .
21.
Mays, N. and C. Pope (1995) `Rigour and Qualitative Research' , British Medical Journal311(8 July): 109-112 .
22.
Medical Research Council (2000) A Framework for Development and Evaluation of RCTs For Complex Interventions to Improve Health. London: MRC .
23.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (1996) Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD Guidelines for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. Report No 4. York: CRD.
24.
Oakley, A. and D. Fullerton (1996) `The Lamp-Post of Research: Support or Illumination', in A. Oakley and H. Roberts (eds) Evaluating Social Interventions: a Report of Two Workshops Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. Ilford, Essex: Barnardos .
25.
Patton, M. (1996) Utilisation-focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .
26.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage .
27.
Peled, E. and S. Spiro (1998) `Goal-focused Evaluation' , Evaluation4(4): 455-468 .
28.
Pope, C. and N. Mays (1995) `Reaching the Parts Other Methods Cannot Reach: an Introduction to Qualitative Methods in Health and Social Services Research' , British Medical Journal311: 42-45 .
29.
Rossi, P., H. Freeman, and M. Lipsey (1999) Evaluation: a Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
30.
Sassi, F. (2000) `Methods for the Evaluation of Health Care Interventions', in R. Cookson, A. Maynard, D. McDaid, F. Sassi and T. Sheldon (eds) Analysis of the Scientific and Technical Evaluation of Health Interventions. Report to the European Commission, July. Downloadable via http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/lsehsc/astec_report.htm
31.
Sefton, T., S. Byford, D. McDaid, J. Hills and M. Knapp (2002) Making the Most Of It: Economic Evaluation in the Social Welfare Field. York: York Publishing Services .
32.
Shiell, A. and P. Hawe (1996) `Health Promotion Community Development and the Tyranny of Individualism' , Health Economics5(3): 241-247 .
33.
Stockdale, J., P. Gresham and C. Whitehead (1999) Applying Economic Evaluation to Policing Activity. Policy Research Series Paper 103. London: Home Office .
34.
White, M. and J. Lakey (1992) The Restart Effect: Evaluation of Labour Market Programme for Unemployed People. London: Policy Studies Institute .
