Two main functions of evaluation are enabling accountability and collective learning. Both of these – and their combination – run into diverse complications when applied in complex multi-actor policy processes. The article explores these complications and illustrates them with examples from the field of spatial policy. In doing so, a third function of evaluation in such contexts is identified, viz. evaluation as an instrument of co-operation. Next, a number of theoretical ideas, supported by empirical research, are proposed in order to understand better when, why and how evaluation contributes to complex multi-actor policy processes. Based on these insights, some principles are elaborated for the development of constructive evaluation arrangements. The authors suggest that co-operation is a precondition for the preservation of accountability and learning functions of evaluation in multi-actor settings.
Abma, T. A. (1996) Responsief evalueren: discourses, controversen en allianties in het postmoderne. Delft: Eburon .
2.
Abma, T. A. and R. E. Stake (2001) ‘Stake's Responsive Evaluation: Core Ideas and Evolution’ ,New Directions for Evaluation92: 7–22 .
3.
Child (1972) ‘Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice’ ,Sociology6: 1–22 .
4.
Cousins, J. B. and L. M. Earl (1992) ‘The Case for Participatory Evaluation’ ,Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis14(4): 397–418 .
5.
DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
6.
Dryzek, John S. (1993) ‘Policy Analysis and Planning: From Science to Argument’, in Frank Fischer and John Forester (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, pp. 56–75. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press .
7.
Edelenbos, J. (1999) ‘Design and Management of Participatory Public Policy Making’ , Public Management1(4): 569–578 .
8.
Fischer, Frank and John Forester , eds (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press .
9.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE .
10.
House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (1998) Deliberative Democratic Evaluation in Practice. Boulder: University of Colorado .
11.
House, E. R. and K. R. Howe (2000) ‘Deliberative Democratic Evaluation’ ,New Directions for Evaluation85: 3–12 .
12.
Kickert, W. J. M. , E.-H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan , eds (1997) Managing Complex Networks. London: SAGE .
13.
Klijn, E.-H. (1997) ‘Policy Networks: An Overview. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector’, in W. J. M. Kickert , E.-H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan (eds) Managing Complex Networks, pp. 14–34. London: SAGE .
14.
Klijn, E.-H. and G. R. Teisman (2001) ‘Governing Public–Private Partnerships: Analysing and Managing the Processes and Institutional Characteristics of Public–Private Partnerships’, in P. Osborn (ed.) Public–Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective, pp. 165–186. London: Routledge .
15.
Leeuw, F. L. and P. J. Rozendal (1994) ‘Policy Evaluation and the Netherlands’ Government: Scope, Utilization and Organizational Learning. Can Governments Learn?’, in F. L. Leeuw , R. C. Rist and R. C. Sonnichsen (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation and Organizational Learning, pp. 67–86. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers .
16.
Majone, Giandomenico (1989) Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
17.
March, J. and J. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press .
18.
Mayne, J. (2003) ‘Results-Based Governance: Collaborating for Outcomes’, in A. Gray , B. Jenkins , F. Leeuw and J. Mayne (eds) Collaboration in Public Services:The Challenge for Evaluation, pp. 105–130. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction .
19.
Mead, G. H. (1962 (1934)) Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press .
20.
Mulder, H.-P. , G.Walraven , A. d. Groot , F. S.Terpstra , P. Rozendal , O. Delsman , A. v. Loon , R. Venderbosch and F. L. Leeuw (1991) ‘Gebruik van beleidsevaluatieonderzoek bij de rijksoverheid’ ,Beleidswetenschap5: 203–228 .
Provus, Malcolm N. (1971) Discrepancy Evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon .
23.
Rist, R. C. (1994) ‘The Preconditions for Learning: Lessons from the Public Sector’, in F. L. Leeuw , R. C. Rist and R. C. Sonnichsen (eds) Can Governments Learn? Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation and Organizational Learning, pp. 189–205. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction .
24.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997) Games Real Actors Play; Actor-Centred Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press .
25.
Schwandt,Thomas A. (1984) ‘An Examination of Alternative Models for Socio-Behavioral Inquiry’, unpublished dissertation, Indiana University.
26.
Selznick, P. (1984) Leadership in Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press : original published 1957.
27.
Shulha, L. M. and J. B. Cousins (1997) ‘Evaluation Use: Theory, Research and Practice since 1986’ ,Evaluation Practice18(3): 195–208 .
28.
Stake, R. E. (1983) ‘Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation’, in G. F. Madaus , M. Scriven and D. L. Stufflebeam (eds) Evaluation Models, pp. 287–310. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff .
29.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L. (2001) ‘Evaluation Models’ ,New Directions for Evaluation89: 8–98 .
30.
Teisman, G. R. and F.-B. van der Meer (2002) Evalueren om te leren: naar een evaluatiearrangement voor de Vijfde Nota RO. Rotterdam: Erasmus University .
31.
van der Knaap, P. (1995) ‘Policy Evaluation and Learning: Feedback, Enlightenment or Argumentation?’ ,Evaluation1(2): 189–216 .
32.
van der Meer, F.-B. (1999) ‘Evaluation and the Social Construction of Impacts’ ,Evaluation5(4): 387–406 .
33.
VROM (1988) Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM .
34.
VROM (1992) Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM .
35.
VROM (2001) Ruimte maken, ruimte delen: Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening 2000/2020. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM .
36.
VROM (2004) Nota Ruimte: Ruimte om te ontwikkelen. The Hague: Ministerie van VROM .
37.
Weick, K. E. (1979) Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .
38.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. London: SAGE .
39.
Weiss, C. H. (1980) ‘Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion’ ,Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization1(3): 381–404 .
40.
Werkgroep Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening (1999–2000) Notie van ruimte: Op weg naar de Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening. The Hague: Tweede Kamer 27210.
41.
Woltjer, J. W. (2000) Consensus Planning: The Relevance of Communicative Planning Theory in Dutch Infrastructure Development. Aldershot: Ashgate .
