Sensemaking
#14Key Findings
Switzerland falls into the sample’s middle ranks (rank 14) in the category of sensemaking.
Strategic planning is not strongly prioritized due to the country’s nonprofessional element, collegial government and the uncertainty stemming from the direct democracy system. The weak federal state also contributes. The Federal Council rarely presents or implements forward-looking strategic management plans with clear priorities.
No formal institution is responsible for ex ante impact assessment. In some ministries, individual units occasionally perform systematic ex ante impact assessments. Expert commissions that draft laws examine potential impacts, benefits and problems, and the consultation procedures allows stakeholders to comment on proposed laws.
Sustainability checks are conducted within this framework, but are used in only a few departments. Ex post evaluation is a much more developed practice. These evaluations are most established in the fields of development cooperation, public health, education and economic policy.
Strategic planning is not strongly prioritized due to the country’s nonprofessional element, collegial government and the uncertainty stemming from the direct democracy system. The weak federal state also contributes. The Federal Council rarely presents or implements forward-looking strategic management plans with clear priorities.
No formal institution is responsible for ex ante impact assessment. In some ministries, individual units occasionally perform systematic ex ante impact assessments. Expert commissions that draft laws examine potential impacts, benefits and problems, and the consultation procedures allows stakeholders to comment on proposed laws.
Sustainability checks are conducted within this framework, but are used in only a few departments. Ex post evaluation is a much more developed practice. These evaluations are most established in the fields of development cooperation, public health, education and economic policy.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Strategic planning is not given significant weight in Switzerland. It is further rendered difficult by the fact that the country has a quasi-presidential political system – meaning the government cannot be voted out of office by the parliament – with a collegial government, a strong nonprofessional element, a consociational decision-making structure, a strong corporatist relationship between a weak federal state and outside interest organizations, and considerable uncertainty deriving from the system of direct democracy. The rather weak administration and the fact that there are no specific and specialized education curricula for public servants are further factors hindering the prospective capacities of the state. Compared with other advanced democracies, strategic planning in Switzerland is underdeveloped. Moreover, as it is constrained by the governmental and federal structure and the logic of direct democracy, it is rather inefficient.
Strategic planning is the task of the Federal Chancellery, the central coordinating body of the federal administration. Strategic planning in this context involves identifying the current legislative period’s major challenges, describing the period’s major goals and instruments, specifying goals for the current year, and exercising accountability by providing parliament with annual reports.
A recent review of the state of research finds that “in the context of a strongly federal and non-parliamentary system with extended direct democracy, the Federal Council usually fails to present – and implement – a forward-looking strategic management and coherent policy-planning with clear priorities” (Vatter 2020: 251). The COVID-19 crisis revealed shortcomings in the government’s prospective preparedness, as many crisis-management functions had to be put in place in an ad hoc manner (e.g., procedures for coordination between cantons and the federal state, scientific advice) and could not rely on previously planned procedures (Hirschi et al. 2022; Mavrot/Sager 2023).
Citations:
Hirschi, Caspar, Johanna Hornung, Dylan Jaton, Céline Mavrot, Fritz Sager, and Caroline Schlaufer. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Krisenzeiten in der Schweiz: Eine Analyse der Finanzkrise, des Fukushima-Unfalls und der Covid-19-Pandemie. Study commissioned by the Swiss Science Council. Universities of Bern, Lausanne, St. Gallen.
Mavrot, Céline, and Fritz Sager. 2023. “Blame-Avoidance and Fragmented Crisis Management during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Switzerland.” European Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1194
Schedler, Kuno. 2019. “Strategische Staatsführung und Steuerungsinstrumente – wie können Regierung und Exekutive strategisch führen?” In Blackbox Exekutive. Regierungslehre in der Schweiz, eds. Adrian Ritz, Theo Haldemann, and Fritz Sager. Zürich: NZZ Libro, 285-305.
Vatter, Adrian. 2018. Das Politische System Der Schweiz. Grundlagen, Institutionen Und Vergleich. 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Vatter, Adrian. 2020. Der Bundesrat. Die Schweizer Regierung. Zürich: NZZ.
Strategic planning is the task of the Federal Chancellery, the central coordinating body of the federal administration. Strategic planning in this context involves identifying the current legislative period’s major challenges, describing the period’s major goals and instruments, specifying goals for the current year, and exercising accountability by providing parliament with annual reports.
A recent review of the state of research finds that “in the context of a strongly federal and non-parliamentary system with extended direct democracy, the Federal Council usually fails to present – and implement – a forward-looking strategic management and coherent policy-planning with clear priorities” (Vatter 2020: 251). The COVID-19 crisis revealed shortcomings in the government’s prospective preparedness, as many crisis-management functions had to be put in place in an ad hoc manner (e.g., procedures for coordination between cantons and the federal state, scientific advice) and could not rely on previously planned procedures (Hirschi et al. 2022; Mavrot/Sager 2023).
Citations:
Hirschi, Caspar, Johanna Hornung, Dylan Jaton, Céline Mavrot, Fritz Sager, and Caroline Schlaufer. 2022. Wissenschaftliche Politikberatung in Krisenzeiten in der Schweiz: Eine Analyse der Finanzkrise, des Fukushima-Unfalls und der Covid-19-Pandemie. Study commissioned by the Swiss Science Council. Universities of Bern, Lausanne, St. Gallen.
Mavrot, Céline, and Fritz Sager. 2023. “Blame-Avoidance and Fragmented Crisis Management during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Switzerland.” European Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1194
Schedler, Kuno. 2019. “Strategische Staatsführung und Steuerungsinstrumente – wie können Regierung und Exekutive strategisch führen?” In Blackbox Exekutive. Regierungslehre in der Schweiz, eds. Adrian Ritz, Theo Haldemann, and Fritz Sager. Zürich: NZZ Libro, 285-305.
Vatter, Adrian. 2018. Das Politische System Der Schweiz. Grundlagen, Institutionen Und Vergleich. 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Vatter, Adrian. 2020. Der Bundesrat. Die Schweizer Regierung. Zürich: NZZ.
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
There is no formal institution responsible for ex ante impact assessment in Switzerland. Article 170 of the constitution states that “the federal parliament shall ensure that the efficacy of measures taken by the confederation is evaluated.” In some ministries, such as the Department of Economic Affairs, individual units occasionally perform systematic and encompassing ex ante impact assessments. Furthermore, ex ante evaluations by the administration always include checks for consistency with existing law (performed by the Department of Justice) and compatibility with EU regulations, and if necessary, an analysis of budget implications, probable administrative costs and personnel requirements. Ex post evaluations are also frequently performed; however, it is unclear whether the results of these analyses have any substantial effect on implementation.
In a 2011 study, Sager and Rissi argue that “the meager impact and success of the RIA is due to its institutional context, namely Swiss semi-direct referendum democracy. Direct-democratic involvement and the division of power in the course of consensual government are both great barriers for effective policy appraisal.”
Beyond these processes, functional equivalents of impact assessments do exist. First, expert commissions that draft or suggest laws also evaluate alternatives while examining the potential impacts, benefits and problems associated with proposed solutions. Second, and probably more important, is the so-called consultation procedure derived from Article 147 of the constitution. This article stipulates that “the cantons, the political parties and the interested circles shall be heard in the course of the preparation of important legislation and other projects of substantial impact, and on important international treaties.” As a consequence, all those who are affected by a planned law have a constitutional right to give their opinion as to its pros and cons. This has been emphasized recently in a report written by collaborators of the OECD (Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
From a comparative perspective, Switzerland was a relative latecomer to performance-management policies, as were Germany and Austria. It was only in 2011 that the federal administration decided to implement some form of performance management on a consistent basis.
In 2016, a report by the Federal Audit Office criticized RIA praxis in Switzerland, arguing that it did not fully comply with the formal requirements for RIA. This critique led to a political debate about whether the federal administration had deliberately misinformed the parliament. In the course of this debate, the widespread neglect of RIA by politicians was largely ignored. In December 2018, the Federal Council emphasized the need to improve RIAs by optimizing existing processes without creating new institutions. In a recent report, the OECD noted that, while there has been no significant improvement, Switzerland has made some adjustments by reforming “its regulatory policy framework in 2019, in particular through the issuing of new regulatory impact assessment (RIA) directives by the Federal Council. The requirement for RIA to be conducted for all regulations in Switzerland has been refined with a ‘quick check’ procedure and additional consideration for proportionality; however this does not mean that RIA is done in an encompassing and systematic manner. All regulations must undergo a preliminary RIA, which will allow identifying regulations to be subject to an in-depth assessment. A threshold test, based on quantitative and qualitative criteria, is applied to determine whether a regulation should be subject to a simplified or full RIA. The obligation to quantify regulatory costs has been extended and systematized, such as for all new regulations which cause additional regulatory costs for more than 1,000 companies or which place a particular burden on an economic sector. Switzerland focuses less on quantifying benefits and costs of regulations to citizens” (OECD 2021: 286; Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
While stakeholder participation in regulatory impact assessment (RIA) procedures is a particularly strong point in Switzerland, communication processes vary between regions and policy fields. For in-depth RIA, an extended version of standard RIA, Rissi and Sager (2013) show how procedural assessments used to be the most prominent form of RIA utilized in Switzerland. RIA is often outsourced to independent research companies, though this does not affect utilization. In the course of the debate about the Federal Audit Office report on the quality of RIA, an independent Regulation Assessment Unit was demanded by some politicians. However, this proposal has yet to be made concrete. Several cantons have adopted sector-specific tools of regulatory assessment, such as regulatory health impact assessments (Plateforme EIS).
Citations:
Arndt-Bascle, Christiane, Paul Davidson, and Marie-Gabrielle de Liedekerke. 2022. “Wie man schlaue Regulierungen findet.” Die Volkswirtschaft 1–2: 39-42.
EFK [Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle]. 2016. Prognosen in den Botschaften des Bundesrates, Evaluation der prospektiven Folgenabschätzungen von Gesetzesentwürfen. Bern.
Plateforme EIS: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_016D388FAC60.P001/REF.pdf
Sager, Fritz, and Christof Rissi. 2011. “The Limited Scope of Policy Appraisal in the Context of Referendum Democracy: The Case of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Switzerland.” Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 17(2): 151-164.
Sager, Fritz. 2017. “Regulierungsfolgenabschätzung (RFA): Prognosen und Kompromisse.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 14.
OECD. 2021. Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. Paris: OECD.
Christof, Rissi, and Fritz Sager. 2013. “Types of Knowledge Utilization of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Evidence from Swiss Policymaking.” Regulation & Governance 7(3): 348–364.
In a 2011 study, Sager and Rissi argue that “the meager impact and success of the RIA is due to its institutional context, namely Swiss semi-direct referendum democracy. Direct-democratic involvement and the division of power in the course of consensual government are both great barriers for effective policy appraisal.”
Beyond these processes, functional equivalents of impact assessments do exist. First, expert commissions that draft or suggest laws also evaluate alternatives while examining the potential impacts, benefits and problems associated with proposed solutions. Second, and probably more important, is the so-called consultation procedure derived from Article 147 of the constitution. This article stipulates that “the cantons, the political parties and the interested circles shall be heard in the course of the preparation of important legislation and other projects of substantial impact, and on important international treaties.” As a consequence, all those who are affected by a planned law have a constitutional right to give their opinion as to its pros and cons. This has been emphasized recently in a report written by collaborators of the OECD (Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
From a comparative perspective, Switzerland was a relative latecomer to performance-management policies, as were Germany and Austria. It was only in 2011 that the federal administration decided to implement some form of performance management on a consistent basis.
In 2016, a report by the Federal Audit Office criticized RIA praxis in Switzerland, arguing that it did not fully comply with the formal requirements for RIA. This critique led to a political debate about whether the federal administration had deliberately misinformed the parliament. In the course of this debate, the widespread neglect of RIA by politicians was largely ignored. In December 2018, the Federal Council emphasized the need to improve RIAs by optimizing existing processes without creating new institutions. In a recent report, the OECD noted that, while there has been no significant improvement, Switzerland has made some adjustments by reforming “its regulatory policy framework in 2019, in particular through the issuing of new regulatory impact assessment (RIA) directives by the Federal Council. The requirement for RIA to be conducted for all regulations in Switzerland has been refined with a ‘quick check’ procedure and additional consideration for proportionality; however this does not mean that RIA is done in an encompassing and systematic manner. All regulations must undergo a preliminary RIA, which will allow identifying regulations to be subject to an in-depth assessment. A threshold test, based on quantitative and qualitative criteria, is applied to determine whether a regulation should be subject to a simplified or full RIA. The obligation to quantify regulatory costs has been extended and systematized, such as for all new regulations which cause additional regulatory costs for more than 1,000 companies or which place a particular burden on an economic sector. Switzerland focuses less on quantifying benefits and costs of regulations to citizens” (OECD 2021: 286; Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
While stakeholder participation in regulatory impact assessment (RIA) procedures is a particularly strong point in Switzerland, communication processes vary between regions and policy fields. For in-depth RIA, an extended version of standard RIA, Rissi and Sager (2013) show how procedural assessments used to be the most prominent form of RIA utilized in Switzerland. RIA is often outsourced to independent research companies, though this does not affect utilization. In the course of the debate about the Federal Audit Office report on the quality of RIA, an independent Regulation Assessment Unit was demanded by some politicians. However, this proposal has yet to be made concrete. Several cantons have adopted sector-specific tools of regulatory assessment, such as regulatory health impact assessments (Plateforme EIS).
Citations:
Arndt-Bascle, Christiane, Paul Davidson, and Marie-Gabrielle de Liedekerke. 2022. “Wie man schlaue Regulierungen findet.” Die Volkswirtschaft 1–2: 39-42.
EFK [Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle]. 2016. Prognosen in den Botschaften des Bundesrates, Evaluation der prospektiven Folgenabschätzungen von Gesetzesentwürfen. Bern.
Plateforme EIS: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_016D388FAC60.P001/REF.pdf
Sager, Fritz, and Christof Rissi. 2011. “The Limited Scope of Policy Appraisal in the Context of Referendum Democracy: The Case of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Switzerland.” Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 17(2): 151-164.
Sager, Fritz. 2017. “Regulierungsfolgenabschätzung (RFA): Prognosen und Kompromisse.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 14.
OECD. 2021. Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. Paris: OECD.
Christof, Rissi, and Fritz Sager. 2013. “Types of Knowledge Utilization of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Evidence from Swiss Policymaking.” Regulation & Governance 7(3): 348–364.
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
The government conducts effective sustainability checks within the RIA framework. However, given Switzerland’s decentralized political and administrative system, they are used in only a few departments.
The Federal Office for Spatial Development uses the Sustainability Impact Assessment (Nachhaltigkeitsbeurteilung, NHB) process, while the Federal Office for the Environment uses the Economic Impact Assessment (Volkswirtschaftliche Beurteilung, VOBU) process. There is no social impact assessment at the federal level. According to the Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment, cantons have the obligation to proceed with an environmental impact assessment for the construction or renovation of specific types of infrastructure.
Furthermore, most of the cantons have sustainability, health promotion or social cohesion programs that are inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These tend to take the form of mission statements rather than of binding frameworks, however.
The Federal Office for Spatial Development uses the Sustainability Impact Assessment (Nachhaltigkeitsbeurteilung, NHB) process, while the Federal Office for the Environment uses the Economic Impact Assessment (Volkswirtschaftliche Beurteilung, VOBU) process. There is no social impact assessment at the federal level. According to the Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment, cantons have the obligation to proceed with an environmental impact assessment for the construction or renovation of specific types of infrastructure.
Furthermore, most of the cantons have sustainability, health promotion or social cohesion programs that are inspired by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These tend to take the form of mission statements rather than of binding frameworks, however.
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
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).
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.
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.