This article investigates what can be achieved by one particular management by objectives system – i.e. the Swedish National Environmental Quality Objectives system and its evaluation function. A critical programme theory analysis is first developed to reconstruct the programme theory of the National Environmental Quality Objectives system. Next, the robustness of the programme theory is analysed in terms of internal consistency, theoretical support and empirical support. The results indicate that, while some assumptions underlying the National Environmental Quality Objectives system are valid, the National Environmental Quality Objectives’ programme theory has low validity in several respects. The evaluative knowledge the system produces is only partly relevant to or useable by local actors and industry. While the state of the environment is observed and measured in the monitoring and evaluation reports, the direct effects of environmental policy and work are not evaluated, which is a main weakness of the National Environmental Quality Objectives system. It is unlikely that the current evaluation function can effectively support achievement of the National Environmental Quality Objectives environmental objectives. The article suggests that evaluations in support of network governance are more likely to support National Environmental Quality Objectives achievement and sustainable development.
AngelstamPRobergeJ-MAxelssonR. (2013) Evidence-based knowledge versus negotiated indicators for assessment of ecological sustainability: The Swedish forest stewardship council standard as a case study. Ambio42(2): 229–40.
BevanGHoodC (2006) What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration84(3): 517–38.
4.
BjörnbergKE (2009) Rational goals for the urban environment: A Swedish example. European Planning Studies17(7): 1007–27.
5.
BouckaertGPollittC (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BrunssonKH (2002) Management or politics – or both? How management by objectives may be managed: A Swedish example. Financial Accountability & Management18(2): 189–209.
7.
BrunssonN (2006) Mechanisms of Hope: Maintaining the Dream of the Rational Organization. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
8.
EckerbergK (2000) Sweden: Progression despite recession. In: LaffertyWMMeadowcroftJ (eds) Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 209–44.
9.
EdvardssonK (2004) Using goals in environmental management: The Swedish system of environmental objectives. Environmental Management34(2): 170–80.
10.
EdvardssonK (2007) Setting rational environmental goals: Five Swedish environmental quality objectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50(2): 297–316.
11.
EdvardssonKHanssonSO (2005) When is a goal rational?Social Choice and Welfare24(2): 343–61.
12.
EhrenMCMLeeuwFLScheerensJ (2005) On the impact of the Dutch educational supervision act: Analyzing assumptions concerning the inspection of primary education. American Journal of Evaluation26(1): 60–76.
13.
FitzpatrickJLSandersJRWorthenBR (2004) Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
14.
FitzpatrickJLSandersJRWorthenBR (2012) Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
15.
FunnellSCRogersPJ (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gov. Bill 2000/01:130 (2001) Svenska miljömål - delmål och åtgärdsstrategier. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/1197 (accessed 13 November 2014).
GysenJBruyninckxHBachusK (2006) The modus narrandi: A methodology for evaluating effects of environmental policy. Evaluation12(1): 95–118.
21.
HanbergerA (2014) What PISA intends to and can possibly achieve: A critical programme theory analysis. European Educational Research Journal13(2): 167–80.
22.
HöjerMDreborgKHEngströmR. (2011) Experiences of the development and use of scenarios for evaluating Swedish environmental quality objectives. Futures43(4): 498–512.
23.
HoodC (2006) Gaming in Targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review66(4): 515–21.
24.
HoodC (2012) Public management by numbers as a performance-enhancing drug: Two hypotheses. Public Administration Review72(s1): S85–S92.
25.
HouseER (1980) Evaluating with Validity. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
26.
JohanssonM (2008) Barriärer och broar: kommunikativa villkor i det svenska miljömålsarbetet. Linköping: Linköping studies in arts and science (Linköpings Universitet).
27.
KristiansenM (2015) Management by objectives and results in the Nordic countries: Continuity and change, differences and similarities. Public Performance & Management Review38(3): 542–69.
28.
KronsellA (1997) Sweden: Setting a good example. In: Skou AndersonMLiefferinkD (eds) European Environmental Policy: The Pioneers. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 40–80.
29.
LeeuwFL (2003) Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation24(1): 5–20.
30.
LeeuwFLFuruboJ-E (2008) Evaluation systems: What are they and why study them?Evaluation14(2): 157–69.
31.
LundqvistL (2004) Sweden and Ecological Governance: Straddling the Fence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
32.
LundqvistL (2006) Management by objectives and results: A comparison of Dutch, Swedish and EU strategies for realising sustainable development. In: LaffertyWM (ed.) Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 95–127.
33.
MeadowcroftJ (2007) National sustainable development strategies: Features, challenges and reflexivity. European Environment17(3): 152–63.
34.
Ministry of the Environment (2012) Svenska miljömål – preciseringar av miljökvalitetsmålen och en första uppsättning etappmål. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/16347/a/196469 (accessed 18 November 2014).
35.
PollittC (2013) The logics of performance management. Evaluation19(4): 346–63.
36.
ProvanKGLemaireRH (2012) Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review72(5): 638–648.
37.
RombachB (1991) Det går inte att styra med mål!: en bok om varför den offentliga sektorns organisationer inte kan målstyras. Lund: Stundetlitteratur.
38.
RoweA (2012) Evaluation of natural resource interventions. American Journal of Evaluation33(3): 384–394.
SorensenETorfingJ (2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration87(2): 234–58.
44.
ToulminS (1969) The Uses of Argument. London: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Van HertenLMGunning-SchepersLJ (2000) Targets as a tool in health policy: Part I: Lessons learned. Health Policy53(1): 1–11.
46.
VedungE (1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
47.
WeissCH (1998) Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?American Journal of Evaluation19(1): 21–33.
48.
WholeyJS (1999) Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity & Management Review22(3): 288–307.
49.
WibeckV (2012) Images of environmental management: Competing metaphors in focus group discussions of Swedish environmental quality objectives. Environmental Management49(4): 776–87.
50.
WibeckVJohanssonMLarssonA, et al. (2006) Communicative aspects of environmental management by objectives: Examples from the Swedish context. Environmental Management37(4): 461–9.
51.
WildavskyAB (1979) Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
