The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Governing policy evaluation? Towards a new typology
Open accessAbstract
As policy evaluation matures, thoughts are turning to its governance. However, few scholars have combined insights from the evaluation and governance literatures to shed new light on this matter. In order to address this important gap, this article develops a new typology of ways to comprehend and perhaps ultimately govern ex-post policy evaluation activities. The article then explores its validity in the context of climate policy evaluation activities, a vibrant policy area in which the demand for and practices of evaluation have grown fast, particularly in Europe. The analysis reveals that the typology usefully guides new thinking, but also highlights important gaps in our empirical knowledge of the various modes of governing policy evaluation. The article identifies a need for a new research agenda that simultaneously develops a fuller understanding of these evaluation practices and the options for governing them.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Monitoring by itself is insufficient: evaluation is also required, and the results used to inform decisions about environmental management in order to fulfil the adaptive management cycle.
“Of course, monitoring by itself is insufficient: evaluation is also required, and the results used to inform decisions about environmental management in order to fulfil the adaptive management cycle (Mickwitz, 2003; Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017).”
From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017
This lack of attention to the 'back loop' of the policy implementation cycle is well reported in the evaluation literature and represents a governance challenge, with potential consequences for legitimacy.
“This lack of attention to the ' back loop ' of the policy implementation cycle is well reported in the evaluation literature and represents a governance challenge, with potential consequences for legitimacy (Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017).”
From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 87
- AEA, ECOFYS, Fraunhofer and ICCS, 2009, Quantification of the Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Policies and Measures: Final Report
- 10.1007/BF01000821 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-014-1238-5 · DOI
- 10.1093/reep/rev013. · DOI
- 10.1080/14693062.2015.1119098. · DOI
- 10.4135/9781412984157.n2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01076.x · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781107706033 · DOI
- 10.1177/13563890022209217 · DOI
- Chan S, Falkner R, Goldberg M, (2016) Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions. Climate Policy. Published ahead of print 16 November 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1248343. · DOI
- 10.4135/9781848608078.n1 · DOI
- 10.1002/ev.305 · DOI
- 10.1177/1035719X05004001-202 · DOI
- Cooney K, Dreesen T, Lees E, (2014) Evaluation frameworks: A panel discussion on roles, approaches and gaps. Available at: http://www.ieppec.org/proceedings/berlin/ (accessed 8 June 2017).
- Crabbé A, 2008, The Handbook of Environmental Policy Evaluation
- 10.1017/S0007123414000076 · DOI
- Eckstein H, 2000, Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts, 119
- EEA, 2016, Environment and Climate Policy Evaluation
- European Commission, 1996, Evaluation: Concrete steps towards best practice across the commission
- 10.1177/107049659600500104 · DOI
- Fischer F, 2006, Evaluating Public Policy
- Furubo JE, 2002, International Atlas of Evaluation
- 10.1007/978-0-230-34368-9 · DOI
- 10.1093/0199204764.003.0001 · DOI
- Haigh N, 1996, Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective, 155
- Hanberger A, 2012, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 16, 9, 10.58235/sjpa.v16i3.16243 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10584-009-9682-3 · DOI
- 10.1111/padm.12055 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389011431021 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.004 · DOI
- 10.1080/09644016.2014.924199 · DOI
- 10.1080/09644016.2014.924205 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1867299X00004268 · DOI
- 10.4337/9781849809047.00007 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11077-011-9125-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-9388.00197 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389014564248 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286959.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139042772 · DOI
- 10.1038/nclimate2725 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00773.x · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389015607712 · DOI
- 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389007075226 · DOI
- Löwenbein O, 2008, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5, 78, 10.56645/jmde.v5i10.195 · DOI
- 10.1002/ev.20111 · DOI
- Majone G, 1989, Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process
- 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02078.x · DOI
- 10.1080/13501763.2015.1076874 · DOI
- 10.1177/135638900300900404 · DOI · Paper page
- Mickwitz P, 2006, Environmental Policy Evaluation: Concepts and Practice
- Mickwitz P, 2013, Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes, 267
- 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
- Öko-Institut, Cambridge Economics, AMEC, 2012, Ex-post Quantification of the Effects and Costs of Policies and Measures
- 10.1017/CBO9780511807763 · DOI · Paper page
- Ostrom E, 2005, Understanding Institutional Diversity
- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 · DOI · Paper page
- Ostrom E, 2014, Annals of Economics and Finance, 15, 71
- 10.1073/pnas.0701886104 · DOI
- Ostrom V, 1999, Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings From the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, 52
- Pawson R, 1997, Realistic Evaluation
- Patton QP, 1997, Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text
- 10.1111/1467-9299.00102 · DOI
- Pleger L, Sager F (2016) Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning. Published ahead of print 18 September 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1162/GLEP_e_00309 · DOI
- Schoenefeld JJ, Hildén M, Jordan AJ (2016) The challenges of monitoring national climate policy: Learning lessons from the EU. Climate Policy. Published ahead of print 12 October 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1248887. · DOI
- Somanathan E, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1141
- 10.1177/1035719X0300300210 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389004050221 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389006064173 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389007087535 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1867299X0000430X · DOI
- 10.1002/ev.306 · DOI
- Thompson TM, Rausch S, Saari RK, (2014) A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies. Nature Climate Change 4: 917–23. · DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.440 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.01.002 · DOI
- 10.3790/vjh.69.3.350 · DOI
- 10.1002/ev.303 · DOI
- 10.1177/1356389015623135 · DOI
- Vedung E, 1997, Public Policy and Program Evaluation
- Vedung E, 2013, Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, 387
- 10.1007/978-1-137-10001-6 · DOI
- 10.1080/09644016.2014.923625 · DOI
- Waterton C, 2004, States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, 87
- 10.1177/109821409301400119 · DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.396 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511494659 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Waylen, K. A., Blackstock, K. L., van Hulst, F. J., Damian, C., Horváth, F., Johnson, R. K., Kanka, R., Külvik, M., Macleod, C. J. A., Meissner, K., et al. (2019) · Science of the Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462 · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Schoenefeld, J., & Jordan, A.
- Affiliations
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Schoenefeld, Jonas
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 274-293
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2735307218
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 31
- FWCI
- 11.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Evaluation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of East Anglia
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (03SFK4P0)
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
- Keywords
- climate policy evaluation, assessment practices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
