Democratic and participatory evaluation raises questions of power. Power lies not only in agenda setting and problem definition but also in formulating alternatives. The latter seems to have been forgotten in the literature on democratic evaluation. This may be partly due to the general neglect of assessing alternatives in evaluations, whether ex ante or ex post. The article distinguishes different forms of democracy and specifies a model of evaluation that is intended to fit within representative democracy. The model is exemplified by an evaluation of a large infrastructure programme in Stockholm, in which environmental organizations took part.
Arnstein, S.R. (1971) `Eight Rungs on the Ladder of Participation', in E. S. Cahn and B. A. Passett (eds) Citizen Participation: Effecting Community Change. New York: Praeger.
2.
Bachrach, P. and M.S. Baratz (1970) Power and Poverty. Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Dahlberg, M. and E. Vedung (2001) Demokrati och Brukarutvärdering. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
4.
Dryzek, J.S. (1996) Democracy in Capitalist Times - Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Elster, J. (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
6.
Evaluation Report (1995a) Miljömässig utformning av Norra Länken. Rapport 1995-09-25. Stockholms stad: Stadsbyggnadskontoret.
7.
Evaluation Report (1995b) Alternativ till Norra Länken. Rapport 1995-09-28 . Stockholms stad: Stadsbyggnadskontoret .
8.
Evaluation Report (1995c) Betalstationer och betalsystem. Rapport Oktober 1995. Stockholms stad: Stadsbyggnadskontoret.
9.
Evaluation Report (1996) Alternativ till Södra länken. Rapport 1996-02-29. Stockholms stad: Stadsbyggnadskontoret.
10.
Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (eds) ( 1996) Empowerment Evaluation. Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Floc'hlay, B. and E. Plottu (1998) `Democratic Evaluation. From Empowerment Evaluation to Public Decision-Making', Evaluation4(3): 261-78.
12.
Greene, J.C. (2000) `Challenges in Practising Deliberative Democratic Evaluation', in K. E. Ryan and L. DeStefano (eds) Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation. New Directions for Evaluation85: 13-26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Gregory, A. (2000) Problematizing Participation, Evaluation6(2): 179-99.
14.
Hanberger, A. (2001) `Policy and Program Evaluation, Civil Society and Democracy', American Journal of Evaluation22(2): 211-28.
15.
Hofstee, W.K.B (1992) `From the Citizen's Point of View: The Positioning of Program Evaluation', in J. Mayne, M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, J. Hudson and R. Connor (eds) Advancing Public Policy Evaluation. Learning from International Studies. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16.
House, E.R. and K.R. Howe (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Jansson, K. (1994) Dennispaketet - är det lönsamt?Stockholm: KFB.
18.
Karlsson, O. (1996) `The Political Dimension of the Stakeholder Model' , Evaluation2(4): 405-15.
19.
Krogstrup, H.K. (1997) `User Participation in Quality Assessment', Evaluation3(2): 205-24.
20.
Mohr, L.B. (1992) Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Rebien, C.C. (1996) `Participatory Evaluation of Development Assistance: Dealing with Power and Facilitative Learning', Evaluation2(2): 151-71.
22.
Rochefort, D.A. and R.W. Cobb (1993) `Problem Definition, Agenda Access, and Policy Choice', Policy Studies Journal21(1): 56-71.
23.
Rossi, P.H., H.E. Freeman and M.W. Lipsey (1999) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 6th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: a Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
25.
Vedung, E. (1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
