To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
10
---
---
9
Switzerland
Evaluation is a well-established practice in Switzerland, with diverse institutions and practices that have progressed significantly since the 1990s. According to the recent literature, Switzerland has a highly institutionalized evaluation system compared to other countries (Jacob et al. 2015).
Indeed, Article 170 of the constitution states that “(t)he federal parliament shall ensure that the efficacy of measures taken by the confederation is evaluated.” Ex post evaluations have been strongly developed, and are standard in most policy fields, if to varying degrees. Evaluations are best established in the fields of development cooperation, public health, education and economic policy. Ex post evaluations are an important source of information for the revision and development of policies when used by the administration and can lead to genuine policy learning (Bundi/Trein 2022).
Administrations use evaluation to gather external expertise that is not available in-house, but evaluations are also used in administrative and political strategic games focusing on potential future policy developments (Mavrot/Pattyn 2022). Administration experts prepare reforms and draft laws and reports based on the available empirical evidence, which includes policy evaluations (Sager et al. 2021). Administrations sometimes publish reports as a means of transparently explaining how they have addressed policy evaluations’ recommendations, but there is no systematic and binding rule regarding this practice.
However, the administration formulates drafts that are subject to pre-parliamentary and parliamentary policymaking processes that include many relevant actors that do not prioritize evidence. The main goal of policymaking in Switzerland is acceptance rather than evidence-based policy. Nonetheless, as many evaluations focus on learning within the administration rather than serving the purposes of executive oversight or the development of new legislation, the impact of evaluations remains significant in Switzerland. Evaluation results used in direct democracy campaigns have also been found to enhance the quality of the debate, moving the discussion away from politics to policies (Sager et al. 2023). The Swiss evaluation community is one of the most professional in Europe, and evaluations are of good quality. Evaluation experts are gathered within the Swiss Evaluation Society, which provides guidelines, training and evaluation standards (SEVAL). The role of ex post evaluations in Switzerland can thus be considered important.
Furthermore, the federal parliament has an internal evaluation unit called Parliamentary Control of the Administration. Regarding the use of evaluations in public administration, evaluations are occasionally used systematically in policy formulation. However, evaluations are more commonly used symbolically to increase the attractiveness of legislative bills (Widmer 2020: 214).
Indeed, Article 170 of the constitution states that “(t)he federal parliament shall ensure that the efficacy of measures taken by the confederation is evaluated.” Ex post evaluations have been strongly developed, and are standard in most policy fields, if to varying degrees. Evaluations are best established in the fields of development cooperation, public health, education and economic policy. Ex post evaluations are an important source of information for the revision and development of policies when used by the administration and can lead to genuine policy learning (Bundi/Trein 2022).
Administrations use evaluation to gather external expertise that is not available in-house, but evaluations are also used in administrative and political strategic games focusing on potential future policy developments (Mavrot/Pattyn 2022). Administration experts prepare reforms and draft laws and reports based on the available empirical evidence, which includes policy evaluations (Sager et al. 2021). Administrations sometimes publish reports as a means of transparently explaining how they have addressed policy evaluations’ recommendations, but there is no systematic and binding rule regarding this practice.
However, the administration formulates drafts that are subject to pre-parliamentary and parliamentary policymaking processes that include many relevant actors that do not prioritize evidence. The main goal of policymaking in Switzerland is acceptance rather than evidence-based policy. Nonetheless, as many evaluations focus on learning within the administration rather than serving the purposes of executive oversight or the development of new legislation, the impact of evaluations remains significant in Switzerland. Evaluation results used in direct democracy campaigns have also been found to enhance the quality of the debate, moving the discussion away from politics to policies (Sager et al. 2023). The Swiss evaluation community is one of the most professional in Europe, and evaluations are of good quality. Evaluation experts are gathered within the Swiss Evaluation Society, which provides guidelines, training and evaluation standards (SEVAL). The role of ex post evaluations in Switzerland can thus be considered important.
Furthermore, the federal parliament has an internal evaluation unit called Parliamentary Control of the Administration. Regarding the use of evaluations in public administration, evaluations are occasionally used systematically in policy formulation. However, evaluations are more commonly used symbolically to increase the attractiveness of legislative bills (Widmer 2020: 214).
Citations:
Bundi, P., and P. Trein. 2022. “Evaluation Use and Learning in Public Policy.” Policy Sci 55 (3): 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09462-6
Jacob, S., Speer, S., and Furubo, J. E. 2015. “The Institutionalization of Evaluation Matters: Updating the International Atlas of Evaluation 10 Years Later.” Evaluation 21 (1): 6–31.
Mavrot, Céline, and Valérie Pattyn. 2022. “The Politics of Evaluation.” In Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, eds. Andreas Ladner and Fritz Sager, 243-254. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sager, Fritz, Susanne Hadorn, Andreas Balthasar, and Céline Mavrot. 2021. Politikevaluation: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Sager, F., Schlaufer, C., and Stucki, I. 2023. “Chapter 16: Relevance of Evaluation Findings in Direct Democracy Decisions.” In Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800884892.00025
Sager, Fritz, Thomas Widmer, and Andreas Balthasar, eds. 2017. Evaluation im politischen System der Schweiz. Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Wechselwirkungen. Zürich: NZZ Verlag.
SEVAL: https://www.seval.ch/
Widmer, Thomas. 2020. “Switzerland.” In The Institutionalisation of Evaluation in Europe, eds. Reinhard Stockmann, Wolfgang Meyer, and Lena Taube, 199–225. Cham: Springer Nature.
Bundi, P., and P. Trein. 2022. “Evaluation Use and Learning in Public Policy.” Policy Sci 55 (3): 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09462-6
Jacob, S., Speer, S., and Furubo, J. E. 2015. “The Institutionalization of Evaluation Matters: Updating the International Atlas of Evaluation 10 Years Later.” Evaluation 21 (1): 6–31.
Mavrot, Céline, and Valérie Pattyn. 2022. “The Politics of Evaluation.” In Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, eds. Andreas Ladner and Fritz Sager, 243-254. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sager, Fritz, Susanne Hadorn, Andreas Balthasar, and Céline Mavrot. 2021. Politikevaluation: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Sager, F., Schlaufer, C., and Stucki, I. 2023. “Chapter 16: Relevance of Evaluation Findings in Direct Democracy Decisions.” In Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800884892.00025
Sager, Fritz, Thomas Widmer, and Andreas Balthasar, eds. 2017. Evaluation im politischen System der Schweiz. Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Wechselwirkungen. Zürich: NZZ Verlag.
SEVAL: https://www.seval.ch/
Widmer, Thomas. 2020. “Switzerland.” In The Institutionalisation of Evaluation in Europe, eds. Reinhard Stockmann, Wolfgang Meyer, and Lena Taube, 199–225. Cham: Springer Nature.
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
Denmark
There are no legal requirements for ex post evaluations of public policies, although these evaluations occur through various formal and informal channels. For economic policies, the Economic Council regularly conducts evaluations, which are also performed in relation to medium-term planning and other policy work. These evaluations provide citizens with more information via media outlets and enable policy entrepreneurs to advocate for policy reforms. Think tanks such as the Economic Council of the Labor Movement (Arbejdsderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd), CEPOS (a liberal think tank) and Concito (a green think tank) also regularly comment on the ex post effects of policy initiatives as part of ongoing policy discussions. Many interest organizations have secretariats and regular publications that may include such evaluations. Recent examples show that explicit ex post evaluations, conducted by independent researchers, have been part of labor market interventions.
Expert committees are often appointed to analyze issues. Significant policies are regularly debated, and policy reforms are common. The preparation of the annual budget is one occasion for evaluating policies. The parliament’s Auditor General (Rigsrevision) also issues an annual report, which may lead to policy reforms. In some cases, an assessment is made an explicit part of a political agreement (e.g., labor market policy).
Expert committees are often appointed to analyze issues. Significant policies are regularly debated, and policy reforms are common. The preparation of the annual budget is one occasion for evaluating policies. The parliament’s Auditor General (Rigsrevision) also issues an annual report, which may lead to policy reforms. In some cases, an assessment is made an explicit part of a political agreement (e.g., labor market policy).
Sweden
Ex post evaluations take various forms. For the past two decades, performance measurement and management have been an integral part of public management in Sweden, as in most other countries. Audits conducted by the Swedish NAO [Riksrevisionen] are also important evaluation instruments.
There is, however, a tendency to focus more on institutions and cost efficiency – the audit approach – than on programs and impact – the evaluation approach. This is a common trend among Western democracies. Both approaches, however, are useful as feedback on public policy (Pierre, Peters and de Fine Licht, 2018; Peters and Pierre, 2019).
There is, however, a tendency to focus more on institutions and cost efficiency – the audit approach – than on programs and impact – the evaluation approach. This is a common trend among Western democracies. Both approaches, however, are useful as feedback on public policy (Pierre, Peters and de Fine Licht, 2018; Peters and Pierre, 2019).
Citations:
Pierre, J. B., Peters, B. G., and de Fine Licht, J. 2018. “Is Auditing the New Evaluation? Can it be? Should it be?” International Journal of Public Sector Management 31: 726-39.
Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. 2019. “From Evaluation to Auditing and from Programs to Institutions? Causes and Consequences of the Decline of the Program Approach.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 33 (3): 585-597.
Pierre, J. B., Peters, B. G., and de Fine Licht, J. 2018. “Is Auditing the New Evaluation? Can it be? Should it be?” International Journal of Public Sector Management 31: 726-39.
Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. 2019. “From Evaluation to Auditing and from Programs to Institutions? Causes and Consequences of the Decline of the Program Approach.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 33 (3): 585-597.
UK
Evidence-based decision-making is deeply rooted in the United Kingdom’s governance traditions, and ex post evaluations are as vital to public policymaking as impact and sustainability checks. The OECD ranks the United Kingdom second among its 40 members for its approach.
Specialist analytical functions were recently consolidated into the Analysis Function, a cross-government network of around 16,000 people involved in generating and disseminating analysis across government and beyond. Its aim is to improve the analytical capability of the Civil Service and support informed decision-making throughout the government.
Analytical approaches to evaluation are detailed in the Magenta Book and the Green Book, with support from the Cross-Government Evaluation Group coordinated by HM Treasury. Additionally, the Aqua Book provides guidance on good practices for working with analysis and analytical models. The Behavioral Insights Team (formerly within the Cabinet Office but now an independent consultancy) and the What Works Network (coordinated by the Cabinet Office) promote the increased use of evaluation methods, especially randomized controlled trials.
The Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) serves as the independent regulatory scrutiny body for the UK government. Committee members are appointed through open competition and have backgrounds in the private and voluntary sectors, business, the legal profession, and academia. The committee assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform government regulatory proposals, providing independent advice and scrutiny to ensure ministerial policy decisions are based on accurate evidence and help produce better regulation. The RPC evaluates the quality of the government’s RIAs and examines all published ex post evaluations. If the RPC submits a recommendation to the government, it is expected to be implemented into law. Businesses can directly address the RPC if they disagree with or feel disadvantaged by a specific governmental regulatory assessment. Despite the technical proficiency of these evaluation mechanisms, political reality often tempers their effectiveness. Policy success and failure are frequently contested through a partisan lens, and the incumbent government may not always seek routine assessments of its record.
Specialist analytical functions were recently consolidated into the Analysis Function, a cross-government network of around 16,000 people involved in generating and disseminating analysis across government and beyond. Its aim is to improve the analytical capability of the Civil Service and support informed decision-making throughout the government.
Analytical approaches to evaluation are detailed in the Magenta Book and the Green Book, with support from the Cross-Government Evaluation Group coordinated by HM Treasury. Additionally, the Aqua Book provides guidance on good practices for working with analysis and analytical models. The Behavioral Insights Team (formerly within the Cabinet Office but now an independent consultancy) and the What Works Network (coordinated by the Cabinet Office) promote the increased use of evaluation methods, especially randomized controlled trials.
The Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) serves as the independent regulatory scrutiny body for the UK government. Committee members are appointed through open competition and have backgrounds in the private and voluntary sectors, business, the legal profession, and academia. The committee assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform government regulatory proposals, providing independent advice and scrutiny to ensure ministerial policy decisions are based on accurate evidence and help produce better regulation. The RPC evaluates the quality of the government’s RIAs and examines all published ex post evaluations. If the RPC submits a recommendation to the government, it is expected to be implemented into law. Businesses can directly address the RPC if they disagree with or feel disadvantaged by a specific governmental regulatory assessment. Despite the technical proficiency of these evaluation mechanisms, political reality often tempers their effectiveness. Policy success and failure are frequently contested through a partisan lens, and the incumbent government may not always seek routine assessments of its record.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/regulatory-policy-committee/about
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/regulatory-policy-committee/about
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book
USA
Federal agencies commonly use ex post evaluations – sometimes called post-implementation reviews – to assess the impact and effectiveness of federal policies (Kovacic 2006). For example, the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services will conduct ex post evaluations to determine if federal grants have achieved the desired program goals and, if not, identify and correct the shortcomings. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses such reviews to determine whether housing programs are reducing homelessness or ensuring housing stability. The Department of Transportation regularly conducts evaluations of infrastructure projects to assess their impact on safety, efficiency, economic development, and other factors. There are many more examples across federal departments and agencies, demonstrating the importance of ex post evaluations to federal policymaking.
Since 2018, the Evaluation Officer Council has served as a forum to exchange information between departments, consult and advise the OMB on issues that affect evaluation functions, and coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest.
Although no statute requires such activities, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct such reviews, encouraging them to be rigorous and to use their results to inform better evidence-based policymaking. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts its own independent evaluations and audits of federal programs. These reports usually contain recommendations for improvement in the future (Kinney and Nelson 1996).
Since 2018, the Evaluation Officer Council has served as a forum to exchange information between departments, consult and advise the OMB on issues that affect evaluation functions, and coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest.
Although no statute requires such activities, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct such reviews, encouraging them to be rigorous and to use their results to inform better evidence-based policymaking. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts its own independent evaluations and audits of federal programs. These reports usually contain recommendations for improvement in the future (Kinney and Nelson 1996).
Citations:
William Kinney and Mark Nelson. 1996. “Outcome Information and the Expectation Gap: The Case of Loss Contingencies.” Journal of Accounting Research.
William Kovacic. 2006. “Using Ex Post Evaluations to Improve the Performance of Competition Policy Authorities.” Journal of Corporation Law.
William Kinney and Mark Nelson. 1996. “Outcome Information and the Expectation Gap: The Case of Loss Contingencies.” Journal of Accounting Research.
William Kovacic. 2006. “Using Ex Post Evaluations to Improve the Performance of Competition Policy Authorities.” Journal of Corporation Law.
7
Canada
Formal ex post evaluations are very poor in Canada and, even when they are done, are often not made public (Dobell and Zussman 1981). Following a royal commission on government financial management and accountability – the Lambert Commission – in the 1970s, an older Office of the Comptroller General was given a new mandate to promote ex post policy and program evaluations across the entire federal government (Lahey 2023). However, after several mergers and reorganizations in the 1990s, by the early 2000s the office re-emerged, although largely stripped of its evaluation function (Free and Radcliffe 2009).
Most evaluations are currently conducted by individual departments, which are responsible for assessing their own programs and policies after implementation. These internal evaluations are expected to gauge effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability but are not conducted at arm’s length from commissioning departments. Central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office, provide guidance and attempt to impose some standards for these departmental evaluation activities.
Treasury Board Secretariat has clear requirements for departments to have in place a Performance Management and Evaluation Committee, which monitors results performance and conducts regular evaluations. Evaluation may involve key programming and any programming that may be deemed to be at risk within the department’s risk management framework. Each department must have a Head of Evaluation who can report directly to the deputy. Respective deputies are mandated with these responsibilities.
Parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, can conduct performance audits and studies on implemented policies. Occasionally, independent external evaluators are contracted to provide impartial evaluations. These evaluators can be professional services firms, academics or non-governmental bodies.
Mechanisms like online consultations, focus groups, and surveys can also provide feedback from program users and the public on an implemented policy.
Most evaluations are currently conducted by individual departments, which are responsible for assessing their own programs and policies after implementation. These internal evaluations are expected to gauge effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability but are not conducted at arm’s length from commissioning departments. Central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office, provide guidance and attempt to impose some standards for these departmental evaluation activities.
Treasury Board Secretariat has clear requirements for departments to have in place a Performance Management and Evaluation Committee, which monitors results performance and conducts regular evaluations. Evaluation may involve key programming and any programming that may be deemed to be at risk within the department’s risk management framework. Each department must have a Head of Evaluation who can report directly to the deputy. Respective deputies are mandated with these responsibilities.
Parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, can conduct performance audits and studies on implemented policies. Occasionally, independent external evaluators are contracted to provide impartial evaluations. These evaluators can be professional services firms, academics or non-governmental bodies.
Mechanisms like online consultations, focus groups, and surveys can also provide feedback from program users and the public on an implemented policy.
Citations:
Dobell, R., and D. Zussman. 1981. “An Evaluation System for Government: If Politics Is Theatre, Then Evaluation Is (Mostly) Art.” Canadian Public Administration 24 (3): 404–27.
Lahey, Robert. 2023. “John Mayne and the Origins of Evaluation in the Public Sector in Canada: A Shaping of Both Evaluation and the Evaluator.” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 37 (3): 340–54. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75451.
Free, Clinton, and Vaughan Radcliffe. 2009. “Accountability in Crisis: The Sponsorship Scandal and the Office of the Comptroller General in Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics 84 (2): 189–208.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=3130
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=31306
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/evaluation-government-canada
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9681-8
Dobell, R., and D. Zussman. 1981. “An Evaluation System for Government: If Politics Is Theatre, Then Evaluation Is (Mostly) Art.” Canadian Public Administration 24 (3): 404–27.
Lahey, Robert. 2023. “John Mayne and the Origins of Evaluation in the Public Sector in Canada: A Shaping of Both Evaluation and the Evaluator.” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 37 (3): 340–54. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75451.
Free, Clinton, and Vaughan Radcliffe. 2009. “Accountability in Crisis: The Sponsorship Scandal and the Office of the Comptroller General in Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics 84 (2): 189–208.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=3130
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=31306
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/evaluation-government-canada
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9681-8
Estonia
The GO’s Strategy Unit is responsible for the overall quality of policymaking, including the evaluation of policy effectiveness and the development of a knowledge base for future reforms. In general, ex post evaluations take place three to five years after the implementation of the regulation and cover areas such as competition, administrative burdens and regulatory overlap. The first ex post evaluations were undertaken in 2018. More recently, in-depth reviews have begun in some policy areas, but the evaluation framework is not fully established yet. The publication of ex post evaluations remains at the discretion of the relevant minister. The objective of increasing the proportion of ex post evaluations was set out in the strategy document Principles for Legislative Policy until 2030, adopted in November 2020. The GO has taken several steps toward developing the culture and improving the awareness of impact assessments.
Norway
Evaluations are mandatory for government ministries and agencies in Norway. The government utilizes evaluations across most policy sectors and issue areas. Each ministry is responsible for evaluating policy results within its domain. Evaluations are conducted either by external experts or internal ministerial review bodies. Sometimes evaluations are intended to measure the effect of reforms, although more frequently, they serve as a starting point for future reform processes. There is broad support for evidence-based policymaking, and the results of policy evaluations tend to attract considerable attention. Research indicates that the volume of evaluations has decreased over the last decade and a half, and that evaluations are increasingly performed by consultants rather than research institutes. A possible consequence may be that information relevant to policymaking is less publicly available than before.
Citations:
Askim, J., Døving, E., and Johnsen, Å. 2021. “Evaluation in Norway: A 25-Year Assessment.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 25 (3/4): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7087
Askim, J., Døving, E., and Johnsen, Å. 2021. “Evaluation in Norway: A 25-Year Assessment.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 25 (3/4): 109–131. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i3-4.7087
6
Australia
Government agencies often use evaluations by internal or external experts to understand the effectiveness of current practices and inform future improvements. The approach and rigor of these evaluations vary across government agencies and is not consistent within agencies. In other words, a lot depends on the sponsors of individual programs and their knowledge and appreciation of evaluation techniques.
High-quality evaluation needs to be embedded in policy design and implementation, which has not been the norm at any level of government. The establishment of the Australian Centre for Evaluation in October 2023 aims to mainstream high-quality evaluations and embed a culture of continuous improvement in public sector program development and implementation. The success of this initiative remains to be seen.
High-quality evaluation needs to be embedded in policy design and implementation, which has not been the norm at any level of government. The establishment of the Australian Centre for Evaluation in October 2023 aims to mainstream high-quality evaluations and embed a culture of continuous improvement in public sector program development and implementation. The success of this initiative remains to be seen.
Citations:
The Treasury. 2023. “Commonwealth Evaluation Policy.”The Treasury, Australian Government. https://evaluation.treasury.gov.au/about/commonwealth-evaluation-policy
The Treasury. 2023. “Commonwealth Evaluation Policy.”The Treasury, Australian Government. https://evaluation.treasury.gov.au/about/commonwealth-evaluation-policy
Finland
Consultation with experts and stakeholders is a normal phase in the Finnish lawmaking process. In addition, the public is invited to comment on draft proposals online. Furthermore, all proposals to change existing statutes must be accompanied by an assessment of their impact across several aspects of society, such as the economy and the environment. However, the major weakness of the regulatory framework is that ex post evaluations are not frequently carried out. Finland lacks a systematic strategy for the ex post evaluation of regulations. This means government ministries cannot utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies.
There is no law requiring the analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies through ex post evaluations. Parliament often accepts statements suggesting that the consequences of approved legislation should be monitored and analyzed. However, this rarely happens. Ex post evaluations are carried out on a case-by-case basis by government research institutes such as the Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Government Economic Research Institute (VATT). Evaluations are also conducted by the State Audit Office.
These evaluations usually meet minimum scientific standards. They provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators. They also use modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research. Stakeholders involved, particularly those who can provide empirical information on individuals’ experiences with and responses to public policy interventions, are included in these evaluations. The results of these ex post evaluations are regularly communicated to the public through evaluation reports.
Consequently, there is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a given regulatory change. It is not legally mandated to regularly communicate or make publicly available the results of ex post evaluations. There are no uniform scientific minimum standards for implementing ex post evaluations. There is no independent organizational body that conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results.
The results of ex post evaluations seldom lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation.
There is no law requiring the analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies through ex post evaluations. Parliament often accepts statements suggesting that the consequences of approved legislation should be monitored and analyzed. However, this rarely happens. Ex post evaluations are carried out on a case-by-case basis by government research institutes such as the Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Government Economic Research Institute (VATT). Evaluations are also conducted by the State Audit Office.
These evaluations usually meet minimum scientific standards. They provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators. They also use modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research. Stakeholders involved, particularly those who can provide empirical information on individuals’ experiences with and responses to public policy interventions, are included in these evaluations. The results of these ex post evaluations are regularly communicated to the public through evaluation reports.
Consequently, there is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a given regulatory change. It is not legally mandated to regularly communicate or make publicly available the results of ex post evaluations. There are no uniform scientific minimum standards for implementing ex post evaluations. There is no independent organizational body that conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results.
The results of ex post evaluations seldom lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation.
Citations:
“Säädösehdotusten vaikutusten arvionti,” Oikeusministeriö,
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76082/saadosehdotusten_vaikutusten_arviointi_ohj
eet.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
OECD. “Better Regulation in Europe: Finland.” http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/45054846.htm
OECD. 2018. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en
Opinion service webpage: lausuntopalvelu.fi
Governments Registry for Projects and Initiatives. http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hankkeet
“Säädösehdotusten vaikutusten arvionti,” Oikeusministeriö,
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76082/saadosehdotusten_vaikutusten_arviointi_ohj
eet.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
OECD. “Better Regulation in Europe: Finland.” http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/45054846.htm
OECD. 2018. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en
Opinion service webpage: lausuntopalvelu.fi
Governments Registry for Projects and Initiatives. http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hankkeet
France
Ex post evaluation of public policies is the technique most adopted by administrations. Yet there is no practice of systematic evaluation, except for policies or laws in which the constitutive act stipulates the need for an evaluation. However, over the past 25 years, the Court of Accounts – which previously exerted a legal type of oversight – has transformed its mission and adapted its methods to evaluate public policies from a political, social, economic and financial point of view. The Court’s reports have become reference documents not only for the political authorities (government and parliament), but also for the broader public. However, stakeholders are rarely closely associated with this evaluation process, even if consultations are mandatory in cases of large-scale local construction, for instance. This is one of the rare cases for which the publication of the results is also mandatory (Duran 2021).
In the last 10 years, the government has also sponsored a variety of academic initiatives for the evaluation of public policies. The Institute for Public Policies at the Paris School of Economics and the Interdisciplinary Laboratory for the Evaluation of Public Policies are examples. They are nevertheless rarely invited to propose evaluations at the government’s initiative.
The divide between academics and the administration remains wide. Evaluation techniques have thus continued to diverge between these two worlds. Some entities, including the Court of Accounts and France Stratégie, publish evaluation reports. However, these represent only a portion of all policy assessments produced; other institutions, such as the National Assembly, also regularly publish results of policy evaluations.
Overall, the impact of ex post evaluations often proves limited. One often-cited reason for this is the timing of policy decisions. Evaluations are often seen as coming too late in the process, with politics demanding quicker responses.
In the last 10 years, the government has also sponsored a variety of academic initiatives for the evaluation of public policies. The Institute for Public Policies at the Paris School of Economics and the Interdisciplinary Laboratory for the Evaluation of Public Policies are examples. They are nevertheless rarely invited to propose evaluations at the government’s initiative.
The divide between academics and the administration remains wide. Evaluation techniques have thus continued to diverge between these two worlds. Some entities, including the Court of Accounts and France Stratégie, publish evaluation reports. However, these represent only a portion of all policy assessments produced; other institutions, such as the National Assembly, also regularly publish results of policy evaluations.
Overall, the impact of ex post evaluations often proves limited. One often-cited reason for this is the timing of policy decisions. Evaluations are often seen as coming too late in the process, with politics demanding quicker responses.
Citations:
Duran, P. 2021. “Évaluation des politiques publiques : les leçons de l’expérience.” Revue française d’administration publique 177: 1-15.
Duran, P. 2021. “Évaluation des politiques publiques : les leçons de l’expérience.” Revue française d’administration publique 177: 1-15.
Germany
The obligation to conduct efficiency studies and performance reviews in accordance with Section 7 (2) of the Federal Budget Code (BHO) includes an examination of the achievement of objectives, effectiveness, and efficiency (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, 2023).
In 2013, the State Secretaries’ Committee on Bureaucracy Reduction and Better Regulation adopted the “Concept for the Evaluation of New Regulatory Projects” (Bundeskanzleramt, 2021). This policy mandates a mandatory evaluation of every significant law or regulation after three to five years. A regulatory project is considered significant if the annual compliance costs amount to €1 million, or if the costs incurred by citizens exceed €1 million or 100,000 hours (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020).
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders in evaluations, but evaluation methods often include the involvement of stakeholders, such as through interviews.
The government aims to publish all evaluations on a central platform, but this announcement has not yet been realized, thus the lack of transparency on evaluations remains an issue.
Line ministries determine the practicalities of evaluations themselves, resulting in heterogeneous methods across different ministries. A frontrunner in this regard is the Ministry for Development Cooperation, which has established an external evaluation agency to provide expertise and independence. However, some ministries still adhere to a rather formalistic approach to evaluations.
Particularly when evaluations are commissioned to external service providers from universities or research institutes, the methodological quality is high. However, internal evaluations remain common and frequently tend to be more descriptive and qualitative.
The impact of evaluations on actual policy decisions is difficult to measure. Too often, political decision makers are still characterized by an input-oriented mindset, focusing more on the amount of money spent on a policy rather than on the impact achieved.
In 2013, the State Secretaries’ Committee on Bureaucracy Reduction and Better Regulation adopted the “Concept for the Evaluation of New Regulatory Projects” (Bundeskanzleramt, 2021). This policy mandates a mandatory evaluation of every significant law or regulation after three to five years. A regulatory project is considered significant if the annual compliance costs amount to €1 million, or if the costs incurred by citizens exceed €1 million or 100,000 hours (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020).
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders in evaluations, but evaluation methods often include the involvement of stakeholders, such as through interviews.
The government aims to publish all evaluations on a central platform, but this announcement has not yet been realized, thus the lack of transparency on evaluations remains an issue.
Line ministries determine the practicalities of evaluations themselves, resulting in heterogeneous methods across different ministries. A frontrunner in this regard is the Ministry for Development Cooperation, which has established an external evaluation agency to provide expertise and independence. However, some ministries still adhere to a rather formalistic approach to evaluations.
Particularly when evaluations are commissioned to external service providers from universities or research institutes, the methodological quality is high. However, internal evaluations remain common and frequently tend to be more descriptive and qualitative.
The impact of evaluations on actual policy decisions is difficult to measure. Too often, political decision makers are still characterized by an input-oriented mindset, focusing more on the amount of money spent on a policy rather than on the impact achieved.
Citations:
Bundeskanzleramt. 2021. Bessere Rechtsetzung: Beschlüsse zu Verfahrens- und Methodenfragen im Bereich Besserer Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Bessere Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Europäische Union.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. 2023. “Evaluation von Fördermaßnahmen.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Ministerium/evaluation-von-foerdermassnahmen.html
Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. Zur praktischen Umsetzung und Evaluierung von Gesetzen, Sachstand, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, WD 3 - 3000 - 298/19.
Bundeskanzleramt. 2021. Bessere Rechtsetzung: Beschlüsse zu Verfahrens- und Methodenfragen im Bereich Besserer Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Bessere Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Europäische Union.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. 2023. “Evaluation von Fördermaßnahmen.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Ministerium/evaluation-von-foerdermassnahmen.html
Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. Zur praktischen Umsetzung und Evaluierung von Gesetzen, Sachstand, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, WD 3 - 3000 - 298/19.
Japan
All policies of administrative organs have to be evaluated ex post in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. The ex post evaluation process is managed by the Administrative Evaluation Bureau in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. The bureau formulates the general rules and standards of evaluation, compiles self-evaluation reports submitted by all ministries, and conducts inspections to improve the quality of evaluations. The bureau also conducts government-wide surveys concerning policies and administrative procedures to propose changes to eliminate inefficiencies. Follow-up surveys are conducted after six and 18 months to ensure the sufficiency of improvement measures.
In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored well above the OECD average in terms of ex post evaluation of regulations. There is still substantial room for improvement, especially regarding the involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process. Although there is a unified portal that enables the submission of comments on subordinate regulations, stakeholders are rarely consulted during ex post evaluation.
In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored well above the OECD average in terms of ex post evaluation of regulations. There is still substantial room for improvement, especially regarding the involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process. Although there is a unified portal that enables the submission of comments on subordinate regulations, stakeholders are rarely consulted during ex post evaluation.
Citations:
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. “Administrative Evaluation Bureau (AEB).” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/aeb/index.html
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. “Administrative Evaluation Bureau (AEB).” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/aeb/index.html
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
New Zealand
There is no specific law mandating regular ex post evaluations. Nevertheless, principles and guidelines encourage and support the use of evaluations. For example, the Treasury’s Better Public Services program, launched in 2012, emphasizes a results-focused approach to public service delivery and encourages agencies to use data and evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs and policies (The Treasury 2015). Another example is the New Zealand Productivity Commission – an independent Crown entity – which often conducts inquiries and research into policy and regulatory issues, assessing their effectiveness and efficiency.
The OECD also notes that ex post evaluation is not mandatory and that there is no established methodology for conducting ex post evaluations, but it still considers New Zealand’s ex post evaluation regime to be more robust than the OECD average (OECD 2015).
Assessing the extent to which the results of ex post evaluations lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation is very difficult. In theory, ex post evaluations can influence policy changes or the design of new policies in a number of ways – for example, by feeding into periodic policy reviews or RIAs for proposed new legislation.
The OECD also notes that ex post evaluation is not mandatory and that there is no established methodology for conducting ex post evaluations, but it still considers New Zealand’s ex post evaluation regime to be more robust than the OECD average (OECD 2015).
Assessing the extent to which the results of ex post evaluations lead to changes in existing legislation or inform the development of new legislation is very difficult. In theory, ex post evaluations can influence policy changes or the design of new policies in a number of ways – for example, by feeding into periodic policy reviews or RIAs for proposed new legislation.
Citations:
OECD. 2015. “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook: New Zealand.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2015-11-23/376481-New%20Zealand-web.pdf
The Treasury. 2015. “Better Public Services.” https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/state-sector-leadership/cross-agency-initiatives/better-public-services
OECD. 2015. “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook: New Zealand.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2015-11-23/376481-New%20Zealand-web.pdf
The Treasury. 2015. “Better Public Services.” https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/state-sector-leadership/cross-agency-initiatives/better-public-services
Netherlands
One optional element of the recently introduced comprehensive system of policy evaluation is a process called Toolbox Policy Evaluation. In an effort to improve the generally contestable nature of departmental policy evaluation, the Toolbox offers practical starting points for indicating the expected effectiveness of spending in advance, and for evaluating it afterward. It appears as if even the Ministry of Finance is looking at policy evaluation not just as an element of ex post financial accountability, but also as part of policy learning cycles. The Toolbox authors claim that the complexity of social tasks and thus of policy learning in multilevel policy environments is taken into account in these instruments.
Part of the Toolbox is a “Guide to Meta Policy Audits” (Handreiking Beleidsoorlichtingen) – that is, a meta-evaluative exercise intended to assess the long-term effectiveness of policies. This may be part of a tendency to move away from a focus on single, case-specific ex post evaluation studies to a focus on the construction of broader, more balanced departmental knowledge portfolios, in which several ex post evaluation studies are embedded as elements in a larger body of knowledge accessible to policymakers and other participants in policy subsystems. The extent to which such trends in evaluation studies really inform evaluation practices at the departmental level is not yet clear.
Part of the Toolbox is a “Guide to Meta Policy Audits” (Handreiking Beleidsoorlichtingen) – that is, a meta-evaluative exercise intended to assess the long-term effectiveness of policies. This may be part of a tendency to move away from a focus on single, case-specific ex post evaluation studies to a focus on the construction of broader, more balanced departmental knowledge portfolios, in which several ex post evaluation studies are embedded as elements in a larger body of knowledge accessible to policymakers and other participants in policy subsystems. The extent to which such trends in evaluation studies really inform evaluation practices at the departmental level is not yet clear.
Citations:
P. van der Knaap. 2023. “De lange adem van doelmatigheid en politiek.” Bestuurskunde 32 (4).
P. van de Knaap, V. Pattyn, and D. Hanemaayer, eds. 2023. Beleidsevaluatie in theorie en praktijk. Boom.
Ministerie van Financiën. n.d. “Handreiking beleidsvoorlichtingen.” archief.rijksfinanciën.nl, consulten January 14, 2024
Knottnerus, A. 2016. “Van casus-specifieke beleidsevaluatie naar systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring.” Beleidsonderzoek Online May.
FD, Daan Ballegeer and Jean Dohmen. 2021. “Er wordt veel beleid gemaakt waarvan we niet weten of het werkt.” 16 March.
P. van der Knaap. 2023. “De lange adem van doelmatigheid en politiek.” Bestuurskunde 32 (4).
P. van de Knaap, V. Pattyn, and D. Hanemaayer, eds. 2023. Beleidsevaluatie in theorie en praktijk. Boom.
Ministerie van Financiën. n.d. “Handreiking beleidsvoorlichtingen.” archief.rijksfinanciën.nl, consulten January 14, 2024
Knottnerus, A. 2016. “Van casus-specifieke beleidsevaluatie naar systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring.” Beleidsonderzoek Online May.
FD, Daan Ballegeer and Jean Dohmen. 2021. “Er wordt veel beleid gemaakt waarvan we niet weten of het werkt.” 16 March.
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
Austria
A complex regime of ex post evaluation for legal measures of the federal government was introduced in 2013. Since then, monitoring and evaluation have been applied to various levels and formats of public governance. The key goal has been to allow the federal government to reflect on its activities, contrast its ambitions and outcomes, and use those insights to define future goals more reasonably. For this reason, some relevant bills and other measures are evaluated internally within different departments. These departmental internal evaluations are collected and combined into a major report by a cross-departmental agency and forwarded to the budgetary committee of the Nationalrat.
Some observers have criticized that these institutional innovations have not led to a shift in the public administration’s commitment to higher quality standards. There is no policy mandating systematic external reviews by scientific institutions (such as the German Minimum Wage Commission). Additionally, there is no commitment or understanding that some public policies could be implemented experimentally, allowing for clear academic evaluation and potentially making it compulsory (Pichler and Steyer 2017).
The official 2022 review report on the ex post evaluations (see Budgetdienst 2023) lists 55 measures from 2015 to 2021 that were subject to internal evaluations. In 33 of the 55 cases, the expected effects were met or surpassed; most others achieved their set goals at least in large part. Only one project was considered a failure. However, as stated in the same report, most of these reviews were not carried out in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the “Bundeshaushaltsgesetz 2013.”
The same source notes that those evaluations have hardly been considered by the responsible committee. Further, the report points out that many politically significant government bills were introduced in parliament as motions (“Initiativanträge”) to which lower standards apply. This was true for much of the COVID-19 legislation and many measures aimed at combating inflation or the energy crisis. This also implies that these measures will not be part of future general assessments or official investigation reports.
Systematic ex post evaluation in Austria is also conducted by the Austrian Court of Audit, which focuses specifically on the financial aspects of government or government-sponsored projects. Additionally, ex post evaluation is a major objective for Austrian scientific bodies outside of ministries, such as the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), the Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna (HIS), and other Austrian university actors.
Some observers have criticized that these institutional innovations have not led to a shift in the public administration’s commitment to higher quality standards. There is no policy mandating systematic external reviews by scientific institutions (such as the German Minimum Wage Commission). Additionally, there is no commitment or understanding that some public policies could be implemented experimentally, allowing for clear academic evaluation and potentially making it compulsory (Pichler and Steyer 2017).
The official 2022 review report on the ex post evaluations (see Budgetdienst 2023) lists 55 measures from 2015 to 2021 that were subject to internal evaluations. In 33 of the 55 cases, the expected effects were met or surpassed; most others achieved their set goals at least in large part. Only one project was considered a failure. However, as stated in the same report, most of these reviews were not carried out in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the “Bundeshaushaltsgesetz 2013.”
The same source notes that those evaluations have hardly been considered by the responsible committee. Further, the report points out that many politically significant government bills were introduced in parliament as motions (“Initiativanträge”) to which lower standards apply. This was true for much of the COVID-19 legislation and many measures aimed at combating inflation or the energy crisis. This also implies that these measures will not be part of future general assessments or official investigation reports.
Systematic ex post evaluation in Austria is also conducted by the Austrian Court of Audit, which focuses specifically on the financial aspects of government or government-sponsored projects. Additionally, ex post evaluation is a major objective for Austrian scientific bodies outside of ministries, such as the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), the Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna (HIS), and other Austrian university actors.
Citations:
Budgetdienst/Parlamentsdirektion. 2023. “Bericht über die Wirkungsorientierte Folgenabschätzung 2022. Analyse.” https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/budgetdienst/wirkungsorientierung-gleichstellung/BD-Bericht-ueber-die-Wirkungsorientierte-Folgenabschaetzung-2022.pdf
Pichler, Rupert, and Mario Steyer. 2017. “Evaluierung und Wirkungsorientierung in Österreich. Zur Rolle von Evaluierung im neuen Haushaltsrecht und in der Forschungsförderung.” Zeitschrift für Evaluation 16 (2): 121-139. https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/abs/10.31244/zfe.2017.02.07
https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/386/7/standards_DT_WEB_08042019.pdf
Budgetdienst/Parlamentsdirektion. 2023. “Bericht über die Wirkungsorientierte Folgenabschätzung 2022. Analyse.” https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/budgetdienst/wirkungsorientierung-gleichstellung/BD-Bericht-ueber-die-Wirkungsorientierte-Folgenabschaetzung-2022.pdf
Pichler, Rupert, and Mario Steyer. 2017. “Evaluierung und Wirkungsorientierung in Österreich. Zur Rolle von Evaluierung im neuen Haushaltsrecht und in der Forschungsförderung.” Zeitschrift für Evaluation 16 (2): 121-139. https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/abs/10.31244/zfe.2017.02.07
https://repository.fteval.at/id/eprint/386/7/standards_DT_WEB_08042019.pdf
Belgium
There is no systematic ex post policy evaluation in Belgium, especially for its most important institutional arrangements. However, several bodies conduct ex post policy evaluations in areas such as employment, economic policy, discrimination, and budget (see Varone and Magdalijns 2000). The OECD scores Belgium’s ex post policy evaluation policy at 1.4 out of 4, which is above the OECD average. Hence, while very weak in absolute terms, it appears decent in comparative terms.
Belgium’s numerous quality universities lead to regular academic evaluations of public policies, often commissioned and financed by public bodies. However, these study results are not typically integrated into the process of updating and improving actual policy.
Belgium’s numerous quality universities lead to regular academic evaluations of public policies, often commissioned and financed by public bodies. However, these study results are not typically integrated into the process of updating and improving actual policy.
Citations:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Impact-assessment-in-Belgium-June-2015%20fr.pdf
Varone, F., and C. Magdalijns. 2000. “L’évaluation des politiques publiques en Belgique: théorie, pratiques et défis.” Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique (1): 55-84.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Impact-assessment-in-Belgium-June-2015%20fr.pdf
Varone, F., and C. Magdalijns. 2000. “L’évaluation des politiques publiques en Belgique: théorie, pratiques et défis.” Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique (1): 55-84.
Czechia
Evaluations of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing regulations are usually ad hoc and rarely used. Evaluations of the effects of regulatory changes have not been part of the RIA process but can be carried out by individual departments. However, this has only been done systematically for the use of EU funds, and even then with shortcomings, as revealed by an NKÚ investigation covered under Effective Public Auditing. There is a need to increase analytical capacity, strengthen data sharing across government, more rigorously assess the impact of regulation RIA, and improve the ex post evaluation of public policy documents and legislation. Several ministries and agencies have started to address these gaps. In June 2023, the government approved the so-called “Ex Post RIA” to complete the existing RIA system. This has yet to show any results. From 2025, the review of the effectiveness of legislation in Czechia should have a new, uniform format.
Ireland
The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES) is an integrated cross-government service aimed at enhancing the role of economics and value-for-money analysis in public policymaking. IGEES has increased the number of ante and ex post policy evaluations and economic analyses throughout the Irish Civil Service in areas such as economic growth, social exclusion, service delivery and policy design. However, ex post assessment is not a legal requirement, and the OECD has determined that levels of ex post assessment may not be sufficient, particularly in the context of environmental and sustainability issues (OECD 2021). Despite the establishment of IGEES, the Irish civil service struggles with conducting impact assessments and modeling impacts across different policy dimensions, reflecting insufficient analytical competence (OECD 2023). While IGEES has improved capacity, there remains a dominance of neoclassical economics, often excluding critical social and sustainability sciences, as well as heterodox approaches to economics.
Ex post evaluations are not systematically applied to existing public policies, and it is unclear whether these evaluations lead to changes in existing or new legislation. In the context of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which can be applied to either ex ante or ex post evaluation, there are concerns that analyses may meet national standards but fall below international minimum standards (O’Mahony 2018). O’Mahony’s review highlighted several deficiencies, including an excessively high discount rate (O’Mahony, 2021a) and short time horizons of analysis (O’Mahony 2021b). These factors materially affect cost-benefit ratios, devaluing the costs of environmentally damaging activities and undervaluing the benefits of projects and policies aimed at transitioning to sustainability. Regarding CBA, there are notable concerns about transparency in Ireland. The default position often avoids publishing results or only publishes partial information, despite the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) regulations (O’Mahony 2018; Morgenroth 2011).
Ex post evaluations are not systematically applied to existing public policies, and it is unclear whether these evaluations lead to changes in existing or new legislation. In the context of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which can be applied to either ex ante or ex post evaluation, there are concerns that analyses may meet national standards but fall below international minimum standards (O’Mahony 2018). O’Mahony’s review highlighted several deficiencies, including an excessively high discount rate (O’Mahony, 2021a) and short time horizons of analysis (O’Mahony 2021b). These factors materially affect cost-benefit ratios, devaluing the costs of environmentally damaging activities and undervaluing the benefits of projects and policies aimed at transitioning to sustainability. Regarding CBA, there are notable concerns about transparency in Ireland. The default position often avoids publishing results or only publishes partial information, despite the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) regulations (O’Mahony 2018; Morgenroth 2011).
Citations:
Morgenroth, E. 2011. “How Can We Improve Evaluation Methods for Public Infrastructure?”
Renewal Series Paper 2. Economic and Social Research Institute. https://www.esri.ie/pubs/EC002.pdf
OECD. 2021. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Ireland 2021. OECD iLibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/9ef10b4f-en
OECD. 2023. Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland. OECD Public Governance Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1787/6724d155-en
O’Mahony, T. 2018. Appraisal in Transition: 21st Century Challenges and Updating CBA in Ireland. Tadhg O’Mahony Consulting/National Economic and Social Development Office. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32515.76322
O’Mahony, T. 2021. “Cost-benefit Analysis in a Climate of Change: Setting Social Discount Rates in the Case of Ireland.” Green Finance 3 (2): 175-197.
O’Mahony, T. 2021. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: The Time Horizon Is of the Essence.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 89: 106587.
Morgenroth, E. 2011. “How Can We Improve Evaluation Methods for Public Infrastructure?”
Renewal Series Paper 2. Economic and Social Research Institute. https://www.esri.ie/pubs/EC002.pdf
OECD. 2021. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Ireland 2021. OECD iLibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/9ef10b4f-en
OECD. 2023. Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland. OECD Public Governance Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1787/6724d155-en
O’Mahony, T. 2018. Appraisal in Transition: 21st Century Challenges and Updating CBA in Ireland. Tadhg O’Mahony Consulting/National Economic and Social Development Office. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32515.76322
O’Mahony, T. 2021. “Cost-benefit Analysis in a Climate of Change: Setting Social Discount Rates in the Case of Ireland.” Green Finance 3 (2): 175-197.
O’Mahony, T. 2021. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: The Time Horizon Is of the Essence.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 89: 106587.
Italy
The legislation mandating Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) also requires ex post evaluations. However, as highlighted in the most recent annual government report to parliament, this legal provision is not regularly implemented by public administration. Each new draft law is accompanied by a technical report discussing existing policies and explaining the benefits of the new policy. However, this process rarely results from thorough evaluations or public debates. Often, the assessment of existing policies altered by new bills is based on partisan evaluations aimed at justifying the proposed policy.
Despite these shortcomings, some public bodies produce high-quality ex post evaluations. For example, the Court of Auditors often presents ex post evaluations of existing policies in its reports. The Senate recently established an impact assessment unit. The National Institute for Public Policy Analysis produces strong evaluation reports on social policy, education, and labor policy. However, these evaluations are not intrinsically linked to the government’s policymaking process, and policymakers often disregard the empirical evidence provided.
Overall, ex post evaluation has not yet become a regular tool. It is carried out in a non-systematic and usually partisan manner. The adoption of a policy cycle perspective is missing in government policymaking, resulting in evaluations that are viewed as one-off activities rather than essential components of the decision-making process.
Despite these shortcomings, some public bodies produce high-quality ex post evaluations. For example, the Court of Auditors often presents ex post evaluations of existing policies in its reports. The Senate recently established an impact assessment unit. The National Institute for Public Policy Analysis produces strong evaluation reports on social policy, education, and labor policy. However, these evaluations are not intrinsically linked to the government’s policymaking process, and policymakers often disregard the empirical evidence provided.
Overall, ex post evaluation has not yet become a regular tool. It is carried out in a non-systematic and usually partisan manner. The adoption of a policy cycle perspective is missing in government policymaking, resulting in evaluations that are viewed as one-off activities rather than essential components of the decision-making process.
Citations:
-Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. 2023. “RELAZIONE AL PARLAMENTO SULLO STATO DI.”
APPLICAZIONE DELL’ANALISI DELL’IMPATTO DELLA REGOLAMENTAZIONE. https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/uff_studi/Relazione_2022_AIR.pdf
Di Porto, V., and Espa, E. 2022. L’analisi di impatto e gli altri strumenti per la qualità della regolazione Annuario 2021. Napoli: ESI. https://osservatorioair.it/sites/default/files/files/annuario_osservatorioair_2021_ed2022.pdf
- For the evaluation reports of the Court of Auditors: https://www.corteconti.it
- For the evaluation reports of the Impact Assessment Units of the Italian Senate, see -https://www.senato.it/ufficiovalutazioneimpatto
- For the evaluation reports of the Italian Institute for Public Policy Analysis, see - https://www.inapp.gov.it
-Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. 2023. “RELAZIONE AL PARLAMENTO SULLO STATO DI.”
APPLICAZIONE DELL’ANALISI DELL’IMPATTO DELLA REGOLAMENTAZIONE. https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/uff_studi/Relazione_2022_AIR.pdf
Di Porto, V., and Espa, E. 2022. L’analisi di impatto e gli altri strumenti per la qualità della regolazione Annuario 2021. Napoli: ESI. https://osservatorioair.it/sites/default/files/files/annuario_osservatorioair_2021_ed2022.pdf
- For the evaluation reports of the Court of Auditors: https://www.corteconti.it
- For the evaluation reports of the Impact Assessment Units of the Italian Senate, see -https://www.senato.it/ufficiovalutazioneimpatto
- For the evaluation reports of the Italian Institute for Public Policy Analysis, see - https://www.inapp.gov.it
Spain
Spain has been steadily intensifying its better regulation initiatives, expanding beyond administrative simplification to include stakeholder engagement and ex post evaluation. The Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality oversees the implementation of better regulation requirements and supervises the definition of objectives and methodology for the ex post evaluation of regulations covered by RIAs. However, it does not directly scrutinize the ex post evaluations.
The Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF) handles Ex Post Evaluation related to public spending and the efficiency of public policies. While its reports are not binding, the administration must justify any decision not to follow the recommendations. Ex post evaluation has been reinforced concerning the RRP implementation, with IGAE and AIReF, along with institutions with diverse technical expertise, handling the evaluations.
In December 2022, the parliament approved Law 27/2022 on institutionalizing public policy evaluation within the General State Administration. This law aims to improve public policy evaluation as a transversal tool for all public policies, creating three new bodies: the State Agency for the Evaluation of Public Policies, a Higher Evaluation Commission to coordinate different ministries, and a General Evaluation Council representing civil society. These entities are still pending development.
According to Law 27/2022, the results of ex post evaluations must be published on the Transparency Portal. The law includes specific standards for implementing ex post evaluations based on the content, purpose, and timeframe of the evaluated public policy. However, these innovations are still awaiting development.
Frequent reforms aimed at establishing an evaluation agency and AIReF’s lack of financial and human resources have limited the effectiveness of Ex Post evaluations. Nevertheless, AIReF has become a competent and critical institution, delivering high-quality, scientifically sound reports. Despite these efforts, the evaluations have not resulted in significant legislative changes.
Most autonomous communities have developed additional systematic ex post evaluation programs for their public policies, but the practical impact of these measures has been limited.
The Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF) handles Ex Post Evaluation related to public spending and the efficiency of public policies. While its reports are not binding, the administration must justify any decision not to follow the recommendations. Ex post evaluation has been reinforced concerning the RRP implementation, with IGAE and AIReF, along with institutions with diverse technical expertise, handling the evaluations.
In December 2022, the parliament approved Law 27/2022 on institutionalizing public policy evaluation within the General State Administration. This law aims to improve public policy evaluation as a transversal tool for all public policies, creating three new bodies: the State Agency for the Evaluation of Public Policies, a Higher Evaluation Commission to coordinate different ministries, and a General Evaluation Council representing civil society. These entities are still pending development.
According to Law 27/2022, the results of ex post evaluations must be published on the Transparency Portal. The law includes specific standards for implementing ex post evaluations based on the content, purpose, and timeframe of the evaluated public policy. However, these innovations are still awaiting development.
Frequent reforms aimed at establishing an evaluation agency and AIReF’s lack of financial and human resources have limited the effectiveness of Ex Post evaluations. Nevertheless, AIReF has become a competent and critical institution, delivering high-quality, scientifically sound reports. Despite these efforts, the evaluations have not resulted in significant legislative changes.
Most autonomous communities have developed additional systematic ex post evaluation programs for their public policies, but the practical impact of these measures has been limited.
Citations:
OECD. 2022. “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance: Spain.”
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6e4b095d-en/1/3/6/27/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/6e4b095d-en&_csp_=2ca8c4c4a3deebb9d09f5477c42bced6&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book
Law 27/2022 of 20 December.
OECD. 2022. “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance: Spain.”
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6e4b095d-en/1/3/6/27/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/6e4b095d-en&_csp_=2ca8c4c4a3deebb9d09f5477c42bced6&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book
Law 27/2022 of 20 December.
4
Israel
There is no general legal or formal requirement for ex post evaluation of policies. When evaluations do occur, they are typically initiated by individual ministries. Consequently, only some policy programs include an integral evaluation component and undergo periodic evaluations. There is no systematic information on whether and how these evaluations affect policy modifications. In recent years, the Ministry of Finance has advocated for increased funding for the evaluation of various projects, infrastructure and social programs.
When evaluations are conducted, they usually include public participation and consultation, as well as input from the main stakeholders. While evaluations were once primarily conducted by independent research institutions, it now appears that more evaluations are conducted by private strategic consulting firms.
Moreover, not all results are published. Publication depends on the responsible department. In some cases, the main results are published in the media, but the full report is not. In other cases, full reports are available on the respective ministry’s website, the research institution’s website or both.
When evaluations are conducted, they usually include public participation and consultation, as well as input from the main stakeholders. While evaluations were once primarily conducted by independent research institutions, it now appears that more evaluations are conducted by private strategic consulting firms.
Moreover, not all results are published. Publication depends on the responsible department. In some cases, the main results are published in the media, but the full report is not. In other cases, full reports are available on the respective ministry’s website, the research institution’s website or both.
Latvia
Policy-planning documents, also known as white papers, undergo post-implementation (ex post) evaluations in Latvia. The government has improved these evaluations by introducing the TAP portal and a new standardized annotation form. Institutions are now required to determine and approve whether draft legislation will be subject to ex post evaluation. If they decide in favor, agencies must clearly define the results and indicators to measure the achievement of objectives.
In 2023, the Saeima Analytical Service approved its annual working plan with detailed priorities, including research on weak ex post applications (Saeimas Prezidijs un Frakciju padome, 2023).
The Public Administration Modernization Plan 2023 – 2027 also includes aspirations for developing ex ante and ex post impact assessments, requiring ex post evaluation of high-impact legislation from 2025 (Ministru Kabinets, 2023).
Generally, ex post evaluations, if conducted at all, are either carried out by the ministries themselves or outsourced, with researchers competing against consultancy firms. Typically, the lower bid prevails. However, the application of scientific methods is directly related to the terms of reference prepared by public agencies. The engagement of stakeholders with empirical information depends on the capacity and understanding of the relevant line ministry.
All analytical reports, ex ante and ex post reviews are published in the unified database under the State Chancellery – https://ppdb.mk.gov.lv/. The database was created to ensure access to all commissioned evaluations and research that might affect policies.
No independent organizational body in Latvia conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results. The extent to which ex post evaluations are applied to existing public policies in Latvia varies. Ex post evaluations are included in the information report prepared by the ministry before policy changes. Modern analysis methods, including those derived from behavioral research, are limited in these assessments. Stakeholder involvement in the assessment process is evident, but the extent and depth can differ across policy sectors.
In 2023, the Saeima Analytical Service approved its annual working plan with detailed priorities, including research on weak ex post applications (Saeimas Prezidijs un Frakciju padome, 2023).
The Public Administration Modernization Plan 2023 – 2027 also includes aspirations for developing ex ante and ex post impact assessments, requiring ex post evaluation of high-impact legislation from 2025 (Ministru Kabinets, 2023).
Generally, ex post evaluations, if conducted at all, are either carried out by the ministries themselves or outsourced, with researchers competing against consultancy firms. Typically, the lower bid prevails. However, the application of scientific methods is directly related to the terms of reference prepared by public agencies. The engagement of stakeholders with empirical information depends on the capacity and understanding of the relevant line ministry.
All analytical reports, ex ante and ex post reviews are published in the unified database under the State Chancellery – https://ppdb.mk.gov.lv/. The database was created to ensure access to all commissioned evaluations and research that might affect policies.
No independent organizational body in Latvia conducts periodic quality evaluations of the policy evaluation process and results. The extent to which ex post evaluations are applied to existing public policies in Latvia varies. Ex post evaluations are included in the information report prepared by the ministry before policy changes. Modern analysis methods, including those derived from behavioral research, are limited in these assessments. Stakeholder involvement in the assessment process is evident, but the extent and depth can differ across policy sectors.
Citations:
Ministru kabinets. 2021. “Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 617 Tiesību akta projekta sākotnējas ietekmes izvērtēšanas kārtība.” https://likumi.lv/ta/id/325945-tiesibu-akta-projekta-sakotnejas-ietekmes-izvertesanas-kartiba
Saeimas Prezidijs un Frakciju padome. 2023. Lēmums par Saeimas Analītiskā dienesta analītisko pētījumu plāna apstiprināšanu. https://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS/SaeimasNotikumi.nsf/0/57035417a87d2e4fc2258987002ae2f2/$FILE/611.1.13_4-1-14_23.pdf
Ministru kabinets. 2023. Par Valsts pārvaldes modernizācijas plānu 2023.-2027. gadam. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/341706-par-valsts-parvaldes-modernizacijas-planu-2023-2027-gadam
European Commission, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, Mackie, I., Musa, A., Nemec, J., Reinholde, I., et al. 2022. “Quality of Legislative Process: Building a Conceptual Model and Developing Indicators.” Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/70431
Ministru kabinets. 2021. “Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 617 Tiesību akta projekta sākotnējas ietekmes izvērtēšanas kārtība.” https://likumi.lv/ta/id/325945-tiesibu-akta-projekta-sakotnejas-ietekmes-izvertesanas-kartiba
Saeimas Prezidijs un Frakciju padome. 2023. Lēmums par Saeimas Analītiskā dienesta analītisko pētījumu plāna apstiprināšanu. https://titania.saeima.lv/LIVS/SaeimasNotikumi.nsf/0/57035417a87d2e4fc2258987002ae2f2/$FILE/611.1.13_4-1-14_23.pdf
Ministru kabinets. 2023. Par Valsts pārvaldes modernizācijas plānu 2023.-2027. gadam. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/341706-par-valsts-parvaldes-modernizacijas-planu-2023-2027-gadam
European Commission, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, Mackie, I., Musa, A., Nemec, J., Reinholde, I., et al. 2022. “Quality of Legislative Process: Building a Conceptual Model and Developing Indicators.” Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/70431
Lithuania
The culture of ex post impact assessments emerged following EU accession, when the use of EU funding necessitated evaluating the effects of those investments. Consequently, compulsory requirements to assess the impact of EU funding became a significant factor in the adoption of such assessments. Additionally, some audits conducted by the National Audit Office can also be considered ex post impact assessments.
The new factor that mobilized the government’s attention to the issue of ex post (and overall) impact assessments was the accession into the OECD in 2018. The OECD’s advice and provision of best practices, as well as comparative studies on the use of impact assessments, increased political attention to these instruments of evidence-informed policymaking. The government adopted a formal methodology for conducting ex post impact assessments in May 2021. Subsequently, it also approved a list of 14 legal norms to be assessed using this methodology. In 2023, STRATA organized several training sessions for civil servants on how to conduct ex post impact assessments. However, by the end of 2023, only a few ex post impact assessments had been completed. Similar to ex ante evaluation, ex post impact assessment is still more of a formal requirement than an instrument for improving the quality of policies, with the exception of policy measures that rely on EU funding.
The new factor that mobilized the government’s attention to the issue of ex post (and overall) impact assessments was the accession into the OECD in 2018. The OECD’s advice and provision of best practices, as well as comparative studies on the use of impact assessments, increased political attention to these instruments of evidence-informed policymaking. The government adopted a formal methodology for conducting ex post impact assessments in May 2021. Subsequently, it also approved a list of 14 legal norms to be assessed using this methodology. In 2023, STRATA organized several training sessions for civil servants on how to conduct ex post impact assessments. However, by the end of 2023, only a few ex post impact assessments had been completed. Similar to ex ante evaluation, ex post impact assessment is still more of a formal requirement than an instrument for improving the quality of policies, with the exception of policy measures that rely on EU funding.
Portugal
While there is no systematic institutionalization of ex post evaluations in Portugal, there have been improvements. In March 2021, the Legislative Impact Assessment Technical Unit (UTAIL), located within JurisAPP – Centro de Competências Jurídicas do Estado and tasked with oversight of ex post evaluations, was merged into PlanAPP. Since then, PlanAPP has become the body responsible for ex ante and ex post impact policy evaluation (Decree-Law 21/2021). During the period under analysis, PlanAPP has produced several evaluations.
The most recent OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2022 scores Portugal close to the OECD average regarding ex post evaluation of subordinate regulations. However, the country remains below the OECD average in terms of primary laws. The report also recommends that Portugal adopt systematic ex post evaluation, which is not a current requirement.
The most recent OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2022 scores Portugal close to the OECD average regarding ex post evaluation of subordinate regulations. However, the country remains below the OECD average in terms of primary laws. The report also recommends that Portugal adopt systematic ex post evaluation, which is not a current requirement.
Citations:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2022. “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance EUROPE 2022 Portugal.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638949-Portugal-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
Decree-Law 21/2021. 2021. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/21-2021-159432384
https://www.planapp.gov.pt/estudos-de-avaliacao/
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2022. “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance EUROPE 2022 Portugal.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638949-Portugal-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
Decree-Law 21/2021. 2021. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/21-2021-159432384
https://www.planapp.gov.pt/estudos-de-avaliacao/
Slovenia
The Resolution on Normative Activity adopted in 2009 mandates the assessment of the impact of public policies. In 2023, the Slovenian Association of Evaluators compiled a list of external government evaluation studies to be conducted between 2019 and June 2023. A similar list was drawn up in 2009. Since then, improvements in the government’s evaluation culture have been noted. However, the evaluation culture remains at a very low level. At least two-thirds of the departments did not conduct any external evaluations during the specified period. Furthermore, at least a quarter of them did not understand the concept of external impact evaluation.
The Ministry of Public Administration, responsible for decisions on normative activity that require the evaluation of public policy impact, did not conduct a single external evaluation during the reporting period. The vast majority of evaluations are carried out by research or consultancy organizations, and these evaluation studies are often limited to indicator analyses and compliance checks. The association also observes that the study results are not publicly presented to the evaluation community. Instead, the results are only presented to stakeholders in the problem area, which is inadequate.
The Ministry of Public Administration, responsible for decisions on normative activity that require the evaluation of public policy impact, did not conduct a single external evaluation during the reporting period. The vast majority of evaluations are carried out by research or consultancy organizations, and these evaluation studies are often limited to indicator analyses and compliance checks. The association also observes that the study results are not publicly presented to the evaluation community. Instead, the results are only presented to stakeholders in the problem area, which is inadequate.
Citations:
Bojan Radelj. 2023. Seznam Vladnih evalvacijskih študij 2019-2023. https://www.sdeval.si/2023/06/16/seznam-vladnih-evalvacijskih-studij-2019-2023/
Bojan Radelj. 2023. Seznam Vladnih evalvacijskih študij 2019-2023. https://www.sdeval.si/2023/06/16/seznam-vladnih-evalvacijskih-studij-2019-2023/
3
Greece
Article 56 of Law 4622/2019 mandates ex post evaluations of laws, requiring the involvement of social partners, universities, and research centers. However, Article 120 of the same law postponed the implementation of these regulations until 2020. Consequently, the three- to five-year evaluation period for laws adopted in 2020 or later will not begin until 2024 at the earliest.
The ex post evaluation process is initiated by the Presidency of the Government, which calls on its “Coordination Services” within each ministry to collaborate with the ministry’s services in producing the evaluations. The law stipulates that stakeholders, particularly those who can provide empirical information, should be involved in ex post evaluations. For instance, the law specifically mentions social partners (representatives of employers and employees), universities, and research centers as sources of useful empirical information for these evaluations.
The ex post evaluation process is initiated by the Presidency of the Government, which calls on its “Coordination Services” within each ministry to collaborate with the ministry’s services in producing the evaluations. The law stipulates that stakeholders, particularly those who can provide empirical information, should be involved in ex post evaluations. For instance, the law specifically mentions social partners (representatives of employers and employees), universities, and research centers as sources of useful empirical information for these evaluations.
Hungary
On the government side, ex post evaluation in Hungary is a task assigned to the core executive, the Government Office. It is based on a 2010 law regulating lawmaking and the law on the task areas of the ministries, and was implemented by the 2016 government decree (12/2016 IV29). Ministers are required to report to the Government Office once a year about practices and attend an annual hearing of their corresponding parliamentary committees to report on their achievements and respond to queries from committee members. The procedure includes internal ministerial and external stakeholder consultations before the evaluation reaches the Cabinet Office for approval. The ex post evaluation relies on social science methods. The material produced by the ministries is often not publicly available; however, the proceedings of the parliamentary committee hearings are routinely reported by the press, except when they concern national security issues. Even stakeholders do not always have access to all relevant information. Initially, the appropriate unit in the administration was understaffed, and clear organizational information was not provided (Gajduschek 2016:813). The lack of oversight instruments has long been an issue with the European Commission’s criticism of Hungarian management of projects using European funds. Current modifications of the 2010 Act on Lawmaking include a reference to ex post evaluation. The underdeveloped system is still in place due to the hectic pace of lawmaking and the general aim of the government to reduce oversight mechanisms.
Citations:
Gajduschek, G. 2016. “Előkészítetlenség és utólagos hatásvizsgálat hiánya.” In A. Jakab and G. Gajduschek, eds.
A magyar jogrendszer állapota. 2016. Budapest: MTA TK.
Gajduschek, G. 2016. “Előkészítetlenség és utólagos hatásvizsgálat hiánya.” In A. Jakab and G. Gajduschek, eds.
A magyar jogrendszer állapota. 2016. Budapest: MTA TK.
Poland
Ex post evaluation of policies is prepared by the member of the Council of Ministers responsible for matters regulated by a specific normative act, if such evaluation is requested by the Council of Ministers or its auxiliary body. These members include the plenipotentiary of the prime minister – head of the Strategic Analysis Center, the ombudsman for small and medium-sized enterprises, or the president of the Government Legislation Center. Any member of the Council of Ministers can also prepare an ex post evaluation on their own initiative. The evaluation may concern a normative act or its parts. Before presenting, the minister may seek opinions from other bodies, institutions or organizations. The results are made public by the Government Legislation Center. This form of evaluation is not legally obligatory, and its scope is limited. Only 20 ex post evaluations were carried out in the 2022 – 2023 period (Rządowe Centrum Legislacji 2023).
Citations:
Rządowe Centrum Legislacji. 2023. “OSR ex post.” https://legislacja.gov.pl/lista?pNumber=2&typeId=6#list
Rządowe Centrum Legislacji. 2023. “OSR ex post.” https://legislacja.gov.pl/lista?pNumber=2&typeId=6#list
Slovakia
Regularly analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies through ex post evaluations is not required by law. The Government at a Glance 2019 data ranks Slovakia as one of the least-performing countries in terms of ex post evaluations (OECD, 2019). A specific positive aspect is the work of the Value for Money Unit at the Ministry of Finance. This unit regularly delivers and publishes public spending reviews. Additionally, according to the OECD evaluation (2021), Slovakia has the lowest score in ex post evaluation among EU countries that are also OECD members, ranking second to last behind Turkey.
In practice, ex post evaluations in Slovakia have primarily aimed at reducing the administrative and bureaucratic burden for companies, driven by some measures proposed by the Economy Ministry. Čaplanová (2022) argues that Slovakia has developed a methodology for evaluating the implementation of ex post evaluations, enabling it to move toward making ex post evaluation a regular part of creating the regulatory framework of public policies.
In practice, ex post evaluations in Slovakia have primarily aimed at reducing the administrative and bureaucratic burden for companies, driven by some measures proposed by the Economy Ministry. Čaplanová (2022) argues that Slovakia has developed a methodology for evaluating the implementation of ex post evaluations, enabling it to move toward making ex post evaluation a regular part of creating the regulatory framework of public policies.
Citations:
OECD. 2019. Government at a Glance. Paris: OECD.
Čaplánová, A. 2022. “A Quality Regulatory Framework Requires Regular Ex Ante and Ex Post Evaluation of the Measures Taken.” https://www.rrz.sk/kvalitny-regulacny-ramec-vyzaduje-pravidelne-ex ante-a-ex-post-hodennienie-prijimanych-opatreni/
https://www.mfsr.sk/en/finance/value-money/about-value-money/
OECD. 2019. Government at a Glance. Paris: OECD.
Čaplánová, A. 2022. “A Quality Regulatory Framework Requires Regular Ex Ante and Ex Post Evaluation of the Measures Taken.” https://www.rrz.sk/kvalitny-regulacny-ramec-vyzaduje-pravidelne-ex ante-a-ex-post-hodennienie-prijimanych-opatreni/
https://www.mfsr.sk/en/finance/value-money/about-value-money/
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
2
---
---
1
---
---