This article puts institutional economics concepts to work to help identify the proper role of evaluation in organizations and circumvent key obstacles to evaluation use. Looking at the role of evaluation in bureaucracies through an economics lens has its limitations. But addressing ‘the rules of the evaluation game’ helps to complement currently dominant approaches that concentrate on evaluation quality and practices. In concert with systems thinking, the neo-institutional economics perspective provides useful pointers for the design of evaluation governance configurations geared to organizational learning and accountability.
HirschmanAO (1986) Against parsimony: Three easy ways of complicating some categories of economic discourse. Economics and Philosophy1(1): 7.
9.
HouseER (2003) Bush’s neo-fundamentalism and the new politics of evaluation. In: KarlssonO (ed.) Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy. Sweden: Uppsala University.
10.
HouseER (2013) Evaluation’s conflicted future. In: DonaldsonSI (ed.) The Future of Evaluation in Society: A Tribute to Michael Scriven. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.
11.
HummelbrunnerRReynoldsM (2013) Systems thinking, learning and values in evaluation. Evaluation Connections (EES Newsletter), June, pp. 9–10.
12.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
13.
MathesonC (2007) In praise of bureaucracy? A dissent from Australia. Administration and Society39: 233–61.
14.
MooreMH (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
OlsonM (1971) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
OstromE (2007) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PattonMQ (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
19.
SabatierPLoomisJMcCarthyC (1995) Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies and budget maximisation: An analysis of US Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science39(1): 204–42.
20.
SandisonP (2005) The utilisation of evaluations. In: ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action 2006. London: ALNAP, chapter 3. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/resource/5225.aspx (accessed 12 December 2015).
21.
SmithA (1974) The Wealth of Nations. London: Penguin Books.
22.
StiglitzJE (1987) Principal and agent. In: EatwellJMilgateMNewmanP (eds) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Vol. 3. London: Macmillan, 966–71.
23.
WeberM (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (HendersonAMParsonsT, trans.). London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
24.
WeissCH (1972) Evaluating educational and social action programs: A treeful of owls. In: WeissCH (ed.) Evaluating Action Programs. Boston, MA: Allen and Bacon, 10–11.
25.
WilliamsBvan’t HofS (2014) Wicked solutions: A systems approach to complex problems. Available at: http://www.bobwilliams.co.nz/wicked.pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).
