This text provides a comparative cross-country analysis of evaluation culture and the institutionalization of evaluation. The countries included in this research are the 19 OECD countries examined by the authors of the International Atlas of Evaluation 10 years ago (Furubo et al., 2002). The analysis is based on the results of an expert survey of four to five evaluation experts from different backgrounds for each country, as well as additional information from the literature. Using the nine indicators from Furubo et al. (2002) with a focus on the institutional characteristics of reforms, trends in evaluation culture over the last decade have been identified.
American Evaluation Association (AEA) (2008) American Evaluation Association Internal Scan Report to the Membership, by Goodman Research Group. URL (consulted 28 November 2011): http://www.eval.org
2.
AlkinMC (ed.) (2004) Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences. London and New Delhi: SAGE.
3.
BalthasarA (2007) Institutionelle Verankerung und Verwendung von Evaluationen. Zürich/Chur: Rüegger Verlag.
4.
BarbierJ-C (2010) Éléments pour une sociologie de l’évaluation des politiques publiques en France [Elements for a sociology of public policy evaluation in France]. Revue française des affaires sociales1−2: 25–49.
5.
BarbierJ-CHawkinsP (eds) (2012) Evaluation Cultures Sense-making in Complex Times. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers.
6.
BreenGand Associates (2005) Interviews with Deputy Ministers Regarding the Evaluation Function. Ottawa: Centre of Excellence in Evaluation, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat.
7.
BudgeI (2000) Expert judgments of party policy positions: Uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research37(1): 103–13.
8.
BussmannW (2008) The emergence of evaluation in Switzerland. Evaluation14(4): 499–506.
9.
CousinsBJCullenJMalikSMaicherB (2009) Debating professional designations for evaluators: Reflections on the Canadian process. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation6(11): 71–82.
10.
DrummondMMcGuireA (eds) (2001) Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practise. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
FeinsteinOZapico-GoñiE (2010) Evaluation of government performance and public policies in Spain. ECD Working Paper Series, 22. Washington, DC: IEG World Bank.
12.
FreyBS (2007) Evaluierungen, evaluierungen … evaluitis. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik8(3): 207–20.
13.
FuruboJ-ERistRCSandahlR (eds) (2002) International Atlas of Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers.
14.
GaarderMMBriceñoB (2010) Institutionalisation of government evaluation: Balancing trade-offs, Working Paper 3ie, New Delhi.
15.
GrayAJenkinsBSegsworthB (eds) (1993) Budgeting Auditing and Evaluation: Functions and Integration in Seven Governments. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers.
16.
GrinnellRGaborPUnrauY (2011) Program Evaluation for Social Workers: Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
HallsworthMRutterJ (2011) Making Policy Better: Improving Whitehall’s Core Business. London: Institute for Government.
18.
HansenHFRieperO (2009) The evidence movement. The development and consequences of methodologies in review practices. Evaluation15(2): 141–63.
19.
HuberJInglehartR (1995) Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111.
20.
JacobS (2005a) Institutionnaliser l’évaluation des politiques publiques. Étude comparée des dispositifs en Belgique, en France, en Suisse et aux Pays-Bas [Institutionalizing Public Policy Evaluation. A Comparative Study of the Mechanisms in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands]. Bruxelles: PIE-Peter Lang.
21.
JacobS (2005b) Réflexions autour d’une typologie des dispositifs institutionnels d’évaluation [Reflections on a typology of the institutional mechanisms of evaluation]. Revue canadienne d’évaluation de programme20(2): 49–68.
22.
JacobS (2005c) La volonté des acteurs et le poids des structures dans l’institutionnalisation de l’évaluation des politiques publiques (France, Belgique, Suisse et Pays-Bas) [The will of actors and the weight of structures in the institutionalization of public policy evaluation (France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands)]. Revue française de science politique55(5–6): 835–64.
23.
JacobS (2008) Cross-disciplinarization: A new talisman for evaluation?American Journal of Evaluation29(2): 175–94.
24.
JacobSSlaïbiR (2014) L’évaluation au sein du gouvernement fédéral, un outil de surveillance ? [Evaluation within the federal government: A tool for surveillance?] In: CrêteJ (ed.) Les surveillants de l’État démocratique. Québec, QC: PUL, 135–52.
25.
JacobSVaroneF (2004) Cheminement institutionnel de l’évaluation des politiques publiques en France, en Suisse et aux Pays-Bas (1970-2003) [Institutional development of public policy evaluation in France, Switzerland and the Netherlands]. Politiques et Management Public22(2): 135–52.
26.
LeeuwFL (2009) Evaluation policy in the Netherlands. New Directions for Evaluation123: 87–102.
27.
LeeuwFLRozendalP (1994) Policy evaluation and the Netherland’s government: Scope, utilization and organizational learning. In: LeeuwFLRistRSonnichsenR (eds) Can Governments Learn? Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation and Organizational Learning. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers, 67–89.
28.
MarkMDonaldsonSCampbellB (2011) Social Psychology and Evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.
29.
MayneJBemelmans-VidecM-LHudsonJConnerR (1992) Advancing Public Policy Evaluation: Learning from International Experiences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
30.
OECD (1997) Promouvoir l’utilisation de l’évaluation de programme. [Promoting the Use of Program Evaluation]. Paris: OECD.
31.
OxmanADBjørndalABecerra-PosadaF, et al. (2010) A framework for mandatory impact evaluation to ensure well informed public policy decisions. The Lancet375(9712): 427–31.
32.
PawsonRTilleyN (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London and New Delhi: SAGE.
33.
PollittCGirreXLonsdaleJ, et al. (1999) Performance or Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
RogersE (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn.New York: Free Press.
35.
RogersPDavidsonJ (2013) Australian and New Zealand evaluation theorists. In: AlkinM (ed.) Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists’ Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 371–85.
36.
StameN (2013) A European evaluation theory tree. In: AlkinM (ed.) Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists’ Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 355–70.
37.
SmitsPJacobS (2014) La fonction d’évaluation dans l’administration publique québécoise: analyse de la cohérence du système d’actions [Evaluation in Québec’s public administration: An analysis of the coherency of the action system]. Administration publique du Canada57(1): 71–96.
38.
VaessenJLeeuwFL (2010) (eds) Mind the Gap. Perspectives on Policy Evaluation and the Social Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers.
39.
VaroneFJacobS (2004) Institutionnalisation de l’évaluation et Nouvelle Gestion publique: un état des lieux comparatif [The institutionalization of evaluation and new public management: A comparative inventory]. Revue internationale de politique comparée11(2): 271–92.
40.
WidmerTBeywlWFabianC (eds) (2009) Evaluation. Ein systematisches Handbuch. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden.
