Theory-based evaluations have helped open the ‘black box’ of programmes. An account is offered of the evolution of this persuasion, through the works of Chen and Rossi, Weiss, and Pawson and Tilley. In the same way as the ‘theory of change’ approach to evaluation has tackled the complexity of integrated and comprehensive programmes at the community level, it is suggested that a theory-oriented approach based on the practice of realistic cumulation be developed for dealing with the vertical complexity ofmulti-level governance.
Campbell, D. T. (1988) ‘“Degrees of Freedom” and the Case Study’, in D. T. Campbell (1988) Methodology and Epistemology for the Social Sciences: Selected Papers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
3.
Chen, H. and P. Rossi (1989) ‘Issues in the Theory-driven Perspective’ , Evaluation and Program Planning (12)4: 299–306 .
4.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard .
5.
Connell, J. P. and A. Kubisch (1995) ‘Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiative’, in J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 1. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute .
6.
Cronbach, L., S. R. Ambron,, S. M. Dornbusch, R. D. Hess, R. C. Hornik, D. C. Phillips, D. F. Walker and S. S. Weiner (1980) Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
7.
Etzioni, A. (2001) ‘Humble Decision Making’, in P. F. Drucker, R. L. Keeney and J. S. Hammond (eds) Harvard Business Review On Decision Making. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press .
8.
EU (2000) Structural Funds 2000–2006. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community .
9.
Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
10.
Hanna, N. and R. Picciotto (2002) Making Development Work. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers .
11.
Hedstrom, P. and R. Swedberg (1998) ‘Social Mechanism, an Introductory Essay’, in P. Hedstrom and R. Swedberg (eds) Social Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
12.
Hirschman, A. O. (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
13.
House, E. (2001) ‘Unfinished Business: Causes and Values’ , American Journal of Evaluation22(3): 309–315 .
14.
ISFOL (2002) Servizi all’impiego e decentramento. Milano: Angeli .
15.
Kubisch, A. C., C. Weiss, L. B. Schorr and J. P. Connell (1995) ‘Introduction’, in J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 1. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute .
16.
Mazmanian, D. A. and P. A. Sabatier (1983) Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co .
17.
MEANS (1999) MEANS Collection–Evaluating Socio-economic Programmes. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities .
18.
Meldolesi, L. (2003) ‘Nuovi lavori, vecchi lavori: una nota duale’, in Atti del Convegno in memoria di Marco Biagi ‘Verso uno statuto dei lavori?’, Perugia, 8 Novembre 2002. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane .
19.
O’Connor, A. (1995) ‘Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives: A View from History’, in J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 1, Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute .
20.
Palumbo, M. (2001) Il processo della valutazione. Milano: Angeli .
21.
Patton, M. Q. (2001) ‘Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Best Practices, and High Quality Lessons Learned’ , American Journal of Evaluation22(3): 329–336 .
22.
Pawson, R. (2000) ‘Middle-range Realism’, in Archives Européennes de Sociologie41(2): 283–324 .
23.
Pawson, R. (2002) ‘Evidence-based Policy: the Promise of “Realist Synthesis”’ Evaluation8(3): 340–358 .
24.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage .
25.
Perrin, B. (2003) ‘How Evaluation Can Help Make Knowledge Management Real’, in R. Rist and N. Stame (eds) From Studies to Streams. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers .
26.
Regonini, G. (2002) Le politiche pubbliche. Bologna: Il Mulino .
27.
Scriven, M. (1993) Hard Won Lessons in Program Evaluation, New Directions in Program Evaluation, 58-58. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
28.
Scriven, M. (1998) ‘The Least Theory that Practice Requires’ , American Journal of Evaluation19(1): 57–72 .
29.
Snider, K. F. (2000) ‘Rethinking Public Administration’s Roots in Pragmatism’ , American Review of Public Administration30(2): 123–145 .
30.
Stake, R. (1980) ‘Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation’, in W. B. Dockrell and D. Hamilton (eds) Rethinking Educational Research. London: Hodder and Stoughton .
31.
Stame, N. (1998) L’esperienza della valutazione. Rome: SEAM .
32.
Stame, N. (2001a) ‘La cultura della valutazione, tra pragmatismo e istituzionalizzazione’, in F. Battistelli (ed.) La cultura delle amministrazioni pubbliche tra retorica e innovazione. Milano: Angeli .
33.
Stame, N. (2001b) ‘Tre approcci principali alla valutazione: distinguere e combinare’, in M. Palumbo (ed.) Il processo della valutazione. Milano: Angeli .
34.
Sullivan, H., M. Barnes and E. Matka (2002) ‘Building Collaborative Capacity through “Theories of Change”. Early Lessons from the Evaluation of Health Action Zones in England’ , Evaluation8(2): 205–226 .
35.
Urban Sottoprogramma Roma (2001) Valutazione degli interventi a carattere sociale. Roma .
36.
Università di Roma (2002) Valutazione del programma URBAN, Roma. Roma: Università di Roma 3, Facoltà di Architettura .
37.
Vedung, E. (1998) ‘Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories’, in M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist and E. Vedung (eds) Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers .
38.
Virtanen, P. and P. Uusikyla (2002) ‘Exploring the Missing Link between Causes and Effects’ . Paper presented at the European Evaluation Society conference, Seville, Spain, 12 October.
39.
Weiss, C. (1987) ‘Where Politics and Evaluation Research Meet’, in D. Palumbo (ed.) The Politics of Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
40.
Weiss, C. (1995) ‘Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families’, in J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr and C. H. Weiss (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 1, Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute .
41.
Weiss, C. (1997) ‘Theory-based Evaluation: Past, Present and Future’, in D. J. Rog (ed.) Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 76-76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
42.
Weiss, C. (2000a) ‘The Experimenting Society in a Political World’, in L. Bickman (ed.) Validity and Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell’s Legacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
43.
Weiss, C. (2000b) ‘Which Links in Which Theories Shall We Evaluate?’, in P. J. Rogers, T. Hacsi, A. Petrosino and T. A. Huebner (eds) Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities, New Directions for Evaluation, 87-87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
44.
Wildavsky, A. (1993) Speaking Truth to Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers .
45.
Yunus, M. (1999) Il banchiere dei poveri. Milano: Feltrinelli . (Vers un monde sans pauvreté translated by Jean-Claude Lattès.)
