Search

The paper discusses the idea that the evaluation of public policies is witnessing a remarkable enlargement of its domain, in four relevant dimensions- its object, effect, methods, and data.Regarding the objects of evaluation, policy makers are increasingly interested not only in the evaluation of the content of policies (output) or the result (outcome), but also on a broader notion of impact, which includes direct and indirect effects, on the sub-system under analysis and on society at large. Regarding the effects of policies, the paper calls the attention on the rising of the notion of conditionality, requiring more flexible and sophisticated approaches for in itinere evaluation. With respect to new methods, the paper discusses new developments in counterfactual methods, robust nonparametric approaches (robust and conditional), as well as methods to deal with non commensurable indicators. Finally, the implications for evaluation of policies of the availability of microdata from public sources are examined. In all these devekopments new challenges are identified, calling for advanced methodological and quantitative work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of the paper is to address and explore a much-debated issue within the evaluation community: the idea of "democratic evaluation". What exactly is meant by this term? When can an evaluation be said to be democratic? Through the adoption of what behaviours should this ideal translate into concrete working practice? The essay aims to contribute to broadening the community's debate on these questions, which are central at a historical-political moment such as the post-emergence from Covid-19 and in the midst of an international crisis, that between Russia and Ukraine, which calls democratic evaluation into question in our country. On a general level, in fact, the situation of uncertainty due to the unpredictable effects of the pandemic, the social and economic crisis in the country and the consequent growing distrust of the citizens towards the administration seem to have increased the demand for accountability, leading to talk, as in the rest of Europe as well, of a "democratic deficit". On the other hand, recent administrative re-centralization, even assisted by current evaluative practices, only aggravates the inefficiency of public administration. Accountability, freedom and democracy are never given, they need to be defended, always regained: evaluation assumes a strategic role to this end; it can help bring citizens closer to public administration. The crisis between Russia and Ukraine is changing geopolitical balances; the effects of the war economy, inflation, the energy crisis, and the possible escalation of the conflict add to the uncertain situation due to the pandemic. New inequalities and an increase in poverty threaten to generate deep rifts in the country's socioeconomic fabric. Systemic shocks add to chronic problems: a demographic collapse, stagnation, job insecurity, and a lag in digitization. At the same time, the political system fails to represent and stabilize consensus over time. Governments also suffer from this instability, with the inability to design and implement structural reforms for the country, including that of the bureaucracy. Social complexity, chronic problems and systemic shocks, require the ability to apply effective public policies. State intervention and the ability of the bureaucracy to be efficient and responsive to social change are central issues for the health of democracy. Public policies move within a framework of very high complexity, in which the role of evaluation emerges, which should tend to the development of democratic accountability, illuminating decision-making choices through its methodological rigor, analytical capacity and scientific knowledge. The essay thus aims to address the potential of a democratic evaluation that can broaden the number of stakeholders, the field of values that are taken into account, the repertoire of research methods, the field of interest of policies, and the very definition of the objects of evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that, despite a very large volume of management reform in the EU over the past quarter century or more, our knowledge of the impacts of these efforts is patchy and fragile. It calls on a number of key studies which each, in a different way, carries this same basic message. In the second part of the paper the reasons for this state of affairs are analyzed. One set of reasons is concerned with the considerable methodological difficulties of evaluating major reforms, which are commonly complex, evolving and spread out over time. A second set of reasons concerns the limited incentives for politicians and top officials to take a sustained interest in evaluation. A concluding reflection is that, while this basic situation is not likely to change, there are nevertheless ways in which the academic contribution to reform evaluation can be strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents a reflection on the policy of cost-cutting and spending review in the Italian public sectors. The thesis is twofold. First of all, the paradigm used by the spending reviews' policies is based on the macro-economic theory that doesn't take into account the complexity of the implementation processes. Secondly, the weakness of the administrative technical bureaucracies in coordinating modernisation processes produces an incoherent diffusion of innovations. The paper discusses, as empirical examples, two relevant national programmes in the field of the judicial sector; these programmes are mobilising an interesting governance network at the territorial (local) level and a vast number of projects in specific territorial areas. The implementation of these interventions shows, however, that many judicial offices of the Nation lack the necessary resources and capabilities to sustain modernisation projects and, at the same time, the difficulty of central bureaucracies to oversee and safeguard a coherent fulfilment of the diffusion objectives, due to the fragility of technical bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of the relationships between evaluation activities and re-organization of early educational provision in Italy shows the potential role of evaluation in the processes of modernization of public administration. Local governments need both to guarantee a good quality of the public as well as subsidized early educational centers and to build up an integrated network of all the centers in their area. In this perspective, evaluation becomes a basic tool of local governance. This paper will present a project of evaluation of infant-toddler daycare centers realized on demand of the City of Rome. The project implemented an articulated system of evaluation based on a process of discussion on the definition and evaluation of quality that was shared among different stakeholders and implemented according to procedures of documentation, analysis, and evaluation of the different components of the center quality. The analysis of this experience shows that, within an integrated local network of early educational centers, the evaluation activities aimed at institutional accreditation or at excellence accreditation are likely to be the same. The paper also discusses the value of an approach to the evaluation of early educational services based on inter-subjectivity and participation of many stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses the evolution of public performance evaluation from the early nineties to the present, age of the so-called spending review. It is a re-reading of facts with an operational dimension, also to orient future choices and the growth of the country, promoting policies for the development of productive public spending and acknowledging merit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The University as an institution is a central actor of the knowledge economies. It has now become, in most developed societies, an actor entitled with a large autonomy within the national higher education and research system, in the context of national policies and public management rules. In this sense, the University is a strategic actor, i.e. in a position to develop a vision of its future, based on its missions and taking into account its strengths and weaknesses as well as the threats and opportunities of its environment. From there establishing short and medium terms operational objectives, making organisational choices and allocation of resources – in short, developing a strategy. It is the role of the governance' of a University to elaborate such a strategy and to implement it through a variety of managerial processes and instruments. Among them the evaluation function is of major importance, since it is fundamentally the feed-back loop linking the governance to the real world. But if evaluation is a key-function for strategic actors, it makes it an issue for all the strategic actors of the Higher Education and Research (HER) system, beyond the universities – in particular the ministry in charge of Higher Education and Research (MHER) and the Departments in a University2. Those three levels – National, University, Departmental – are admittedly highly inter- connected and having asymmetrical (hierarchical) relationships, yet their strategic capability must be recognised – hence their legitimate involvement in – and use of – evaluation activities. The objective of this paper is – focussing on the University as an evaluation actor – to identify and discuss the question of its relationships, in terms of evaluation activities, with University Departments on one side and with the MHER on the other – which are both evaluation actors as well. Our standpoint is to refer to evaluation methodologies and our examples will mostly be based on the evaluation activities of the UNIMIL, as well as those taking place in France, at various levels. We also make some references to the evaluation implications of the Bologna process. In a first paragraph, we give an overview of the relationships among the evaluation actors of the different levels; in a second and third paragraph, we focus on the relationships of a university with the departmental and national level, respectively, discussing some methodological issues, concluding then on the stakes which a university faces as an evaluation actor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses some issues related to the actual capacity of Independent Commissions to act independently. In fact the Commissions are very specific types of public organizations which are designed to relate independently by both the private and public powers. Therefore organizational autonomy of these bodies is a precondition to promote their independence of judgement and action. This paper focuses on this issue by seeking the help of studies in autonomy of public organizations and developing a substantive assessment and analysis of the autonomy of Independent Commission. Finally, some critical issues are raised arising from the condition of self-organization. This study concludes with an addendum where it is presented an assessment of an Italian authority: Commissione di Vigilanza sui Fondi Pensione. The basic thesis is that the autonomy of means does not ensure the effectiveness and quality of regulation which should be evaluated retrospectively on the basis of performance actually expressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and innovation policies have been increasingly ascribed to regions as a con- sequence of devolving power and resources from the national level to the local level. Local administrators have been empowered with new and challenging responsibilities but often lack the necessary instruments and knowledge to adequately evaluate the under- taken initiatives and to operate consistently with the European and national dimensions. In this respect impact assessment brings in a new metrics that is neither exclusively related to the scientific and/or economic value of the innovation results nor to a support function to other policies. Experts and/or ad hoc organisations are often appointed by local administrations with the task of describing the dimensions of such impact - qualifying (and quantifying) its descriptive parameters and identifying interested parties. So far this approach has not produced robust results as for the causality links generated, the additionality issue and the role of the local dimension, while the available tool-box is quite poor. This paper is intended to illustrate the results of a pilot experience carried out in the last few years in Trentino. The analysis takes into account the relations among policy makers, available tools, resources, and the role of the public administration and of professional evaluators. Conceptual and interpretative approaches and tools need further development, but the mayor weakness seems to come from the relationship between customer-and evaluators. A new market based on new rules, professional roles and shared behaviours is needed in order to address a correct evaluation pathway and to analyse policies and activities within a common frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper highlights the process of social and institutional change within which evaluation practices are embedded in Italy. To recall the main institutional and normative framework through which the Italian public administration has read its own change can explain the reason why evaluation is necessarily a part of collective decision processes and of their institutionalization. The role participation procedures to public decision processes play in this change reveal the main social and cultural issues which are at stake: the due process and the separation of powers - the one no more considered, as it once was, as a criterion and a boundary for administrative action; the other no more assumed as a democratic criterion to distinguish public decisions as either political or administrative ones. Administrative action and political decisions can be no more conclusively identified within the legal framework. They are constituted by the procedural enactment of administrative planning processes; they are also the focus of what we define as civil evaluation: the kind of evaluation processes which are strategic in the re-definition of both citizenship and administration as well as in the institutionalization of their mutual relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]