Policy evaluation has two main functions: it should lead to policy oriented learning and facilitate accountability. Rendering account is considered an important democratic duty but is not very popular with politicians and, hence, public officials. Learning is popular, but in practice it is often difficult to organize or, indeed, witness.
This contribution addresses the question how, in both functions, policy evaluation could be better utilized. As a starting point we the tension between scientific and political rationality and the barriers associated with these different worlds to the development of knowledge.
As indispensable for sound and productive knowledge management in government the article outlines the importance of societal values, policy effectiveness as a research angle, and the independence of researchers at major evaluations. In addition, relevant research questions, high methodological quality, responsiveness, good timing, and clear and accessible reporting are indispensable. It is argued that these are by no means abstract notions but can be brought into real day-to-day practice.
The conclusion is that a knowledge agenda for policy evaluation that is based on the search for effective policy interventions and societal values can help to bridge politics and science.

In this article, we explore how evaluations are managed by Dutch policy departments in terms of six aspects of evaluation capacity: institutions, programming, budgeting, evaluation process and content, and finally, evaluation use. We also sketch how international organisations and a number of larger countries deal with these issues of evaluation capacity. Internationally, a variety of norms, checklists and procedures demonstrate that the commissioning party is considered to play a key role in the realisation of evaluations as well as their use. Here, evaluation and evaluation knowledge are often viewed as part of the policy process rather than as a separate exercise. Our description of evaluation practices in Dutch policy departments reveals that several capacity-enhancing initiatives were developed in the past few years, such as new evaluation institutions or structures and programs to promote the commissioning of effectiveness evaluations. It also suggests, however, that accountability is an important driving force behind evaluation, perhaps more powerful than learning.

The evaluation purpose is decisive for how a policy evaluation is eventually used and deserves more attention in policy evaluation studies. In the present article, we investigated the motives underpinning concrete evaluations, as outlined in four series of Flemish ministerial policy notes that altogether span a 20-year policy period. The most important key finding is that the evaluation purposes are not sensitive to certain modes, neither are they strongly influenced by reforms and corresponding discourse. Despite the introduction of New Public Management oriented reforms in the Flemish public sector and the financial crisis, the relative share of attention that each of the evaluation purposes get has remained relatively unchanged across time. There seems to be a stable demand for ex ante and ex post evaluations and associated evaluation purposes. The common perception of a trend towards ever more evidence-based policy can hence not be confirmed. Remarkable as well is the low share of attention given to ‘accountability’, at least in discourse.

Ex post evaluation is important for various reasons, in particular also from the perspective of parliaments. Evaluations feed and deepen the democratic debate by adding evidence on the results and real world impacts of laws. This strengthens each of the three institutional tasks of parliaments (initiating and approving laws, supervising government and approving the budget). Yet few parliaments in OECD countries have deployed ex post evaluation systematically.
While the rationale for ex post evaluation is broadly understood, initiatives often run into political logics. The role that parliaments play also differs greatly between countries. There is no clear best practice. Ambition, tradition, culture, political will, capacity and resources determine what is possible and desirable. A positive trend is however noticeable.
Building on examples and experiences in several parliaments, we make some recommendations to upgrade ex post evaluation practice within Parliaments. We elaborate on the Flanders’ case, where the Parliament is looking for mechanisms to extend its role in ex post evaluation. We recommend i.a. the introduction of an annual momentum on which the results of Government policies can be discussed and the performance of a number of ex post evaluations by the Parliament following the example of the French system of ‘rapports d’information’.

One of the classic issues in literature on policy evaluation is that of utilization: how can we make sure the results of evaluative inquiry are used more and better? Traditionally, the answer to this question is often searched in improvement of evaluation quality (accuracy, reliability, independence of the researcher) or evaluation processes (more interaction and responsiveness). Although these are and remain crucial elements for any evaluation, the focus remains on the supply side of evaluation. The psychological insight that people tend to learn more from positive feedback and success is not taken into account.
In this article, we ask whether and how a more positive form of evaluation may contribute to a more effective cycle of learning and accountability. What if – instead of failure, compliance, and accountability – the main focus of monitoring and evaluative inquiry would be to identify and foster achievements that were successful and effective? How would such a positive approach look like and how can it help the actual utilization and usefulness of evaluation? On the basis of theory and international case studies the article describes how focusing on the positive elements of policy and/or implementation may contribute to the demand for and utilization of evaluations.

Since the euro crisis the EU has seen a deepening of integration with a new framework for economic and budgetary coordination. With the new framework reforms in pension or housing market are coordinated at the European level. This comprehensive set of rules and monitoring mechanisms has revived the debate on Europe’s democratic deficit. This article describes how the European Parliament (EP) tries to fill the democratic void in economic governance. The EP’s formal role is limited, but by using mostly informal mechanisms the EP is setting in motion an incremental process towards further control. This development should be seen in light of a political battle on the interpretation of the new rules, which has accordingly become increasingly politicized. The Dutch have always wanted a European economic policy on the basis of technocracy and rules, but at the same time Europe’s political union draws ever closer.

For this article, part of a series on the future of the discipline in the Netherlands, the author has talked to ten newly appointed professors in the field of public administration. We discussed their background, how they see their role and position within university and society and how they view recent developments in our field of study and our discipline. The young professors share their view on how our discipline could and should develop and what their role will be in this process.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have attracted considerable attention in the Netherlands and Flanders, as witnessed by the recent wave of doctoral theses on this topic. This article presents a review of fourteen Dutch and Flemish doctoral theses, published in the period 2012-2015. The main purpose of the review was to examine what the theses’ most important findings and conclusions are. We found that they mainly focus on themes related to effectiveness, transaction costs, and legitimacy. However, although PPPs are often part of a debate between opponents and proponents, none of the studies found convincing arguments for or against the use of PPPs. Instead, most studies stressed the importance of contextual factors for the success of PPPs. The doctoral theses provided various valuable recommendations for practitioners regarding, e.g., the optimization of PPP procurement and the importance of soft management aspects such as collaborative working and process management. We observed that most theses studied PPPs by applying traditional theories and methods and that the majority focused on the early project phases of planning, procurement, and contracting. More research is needed into the later project phases. Finally, since the generalizability of the theses is limited, more programmatic, quantitative, and (international) comparative research is required.