OECD Environmental Performance Review Programme: Accountability (f)or Learning?

Evaluation

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 169-188

  Lehtonen, Markku ^a  

^a LABORATOIRE DES SCIENCES DU CLIMAT ET DE L ENVIRONNEMENT   (France)

Author keywords

accountability; environmental performance; evaluation; learning; peer review; use

Indexed keywords

EID: 30444444383     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389005055536     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abma, T. A. (1998) ‘Text in an Evaluative Context: Writing for Dialogue’, Evaluation 4(4): 434-454.
2. Abma, T. A., J. F. Greene, O. Karlsson, K. Ryan, T. A. Schwandt and G. A. M. Widdershoven (2001) ‘Dialogue on Dialogue’, Evaluation 7(2): 164-180.
3. Albaek, E. (1989/1990) ‘Policy Evaluation: Design and Utilization’, in R. C. Rist (ed.) Policy Evaluation: Linking Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing Co.
4. Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5. Baron, G. (1999) ‘Evaluation, participation, apprentissage: Une conception de l'action public avec rationalité limité. Analyse et étude de cas d'une évaluation d'un programme européen.’ Doctoral dissertation, Université de Rennes I.
6. Bernstein, D. J. (1999) ‘Comments on Perrin's “Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement”’, American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 85-93.
7. Beyeler, M. (2002) ‘OECD Surveillance and Welfare States in Western Europe: Concepts and Methods of a Comparative Research Project’, paper presented at COST A15 Second Conference ‘Welfare Reforms for the 21st Century’, 5-6 April, Oslo.
8. Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Biott, C. and T. Cook (2000) ‘Local Evaluation in a National Early Years Excellence Centres Pilot Programme: Integrating Performance Management and Participatory Evaluation’, Evaluation 6(4): 399-413.
10. Blalock, A. B. (1999) ‘Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement: From Estrangement to Useful Integration?’, Evaluation 5(2): 117-149.
11. Bukkems, G. and H. de Groot (2002) ‘Learning by Auditing: Mission Impossible?’, Paper presented at the Conference of the European Evaluation Society ‘Three Movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence’, 10-12 Oct., Seville.
12. Chelimsky, E. (1997) ‘The Coming Transformations in Evaluation’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish (eds) Evaluation for the 21st Century, pp. 1-26. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13. Chelimsky, E. (1998) ‘The Role of Experience in Formulating Theories of Evaluation Practice’, American Journal of Evaluation 19(1): 35-55.
14. Davies, I. C. (1999) ‘Evaluation and Performance Management in Government’, Evaluation 5(2): 150-159.
15. Dryzek, J. S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Eggers, H. and E. Chelimsky (1999) ‘Purposes and Use: What can we Expect?’, Evaluation 5(1): 92-96.
17. Feller, I. (2002) ‘Performance Measurement Redux’, American Journal of Evaluation 23(4): 435-452.
18. Fetterman, D. M. (1994) ‘Empowerment Evaluation’, Evaluation Practice 15(1): 1-15.
19. Fetterman, D. M. (2000) Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman, eds (1996) Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21. Forss, K., C. C. Reubien and J. Carlsson (2002) ‘Process Use of Evaluations: Types of Use that Precede Lessons Learned and Feedback’, Evaluation 8(1): 29-45.
22. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23. Greene, J. (1999) ‘The Inequality of Performance Measurements’, Evaluation 5(2): 160-172.
24. Haas, P. M. (1992) ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Co-Ordination’, International Organisation 46(1): 1-35.
25. Hajer, M. A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26. Hanberger, A. (2001) ‘What is the Policy Problem? Methodological Challenges in Policy Evaluation’, Evaluation 7(1): 45-62.
27. Henry, G. T. and M. M. Mark (2003) ‘Beyond Use: Understanding Evaluation's Influence on Attitudes and Actions’, American Journal of Evaluation 24(3): 293-314.
28. Joas, M. (2001) Reflexive Modernisation of the Environmental Administration in Finland: Essays of Institutional and Policy Change within the Finnish National and Local Environmental Administration. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press.
29. Kirkhart, K. (2000) ‘Reconceptualizing Evaluation Use: An Integrated Theory of Influence’, in V. Caracelli and H. Preskill (eds) The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use, New Directions for Evaluation 88, pp. 5-24. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Lampinen, O. (1992) The Utilization of Social Science Research in Public Policy. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 4. Helsinki: VAPK-kustannus.
31. Leeuw, F. L. (2002) ‘Evaluation in Europe 2000: Challenges to a Growth Industry’, Evaluation 8(1): 5-12.
32. Leviton, L. and E. Hughes (1981) ‘Research on the Utilization of Evaluations’, Evaluation Review 4(5): 525-548.
33. Litfin, K. T. (1994) Ozone Discourses. New York: Columbia University Press.
34. Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35. Marcussen, M. (2001) ‘The OECD: Transnational Regulation through the Idea-Game’, paper prepared for the SCANCOR Workshop, ‘Transnational Regulation and the Transformation of States’, Stanford University, 22-3 June.
36. Martin, S. and I. Sanderson (1999) ‘Evaluating Public Policy Experiments: Measuring Outcomes, Monitoring Processes or Managing Pilots?’, Evaluation 5(3): 245-258.
37. Mol, A. P. J. and G. Spaargaren (2000) ‘Ecological Modernisation Theory in Debate: A Review’, Environmental Politics 9(1): 17-49.
38. Morabito, S. M. (2002) ‘Evaluator Roles and Strategies for Expanding Evaluation Process Influence’, American Journal of Evaluation 23(3): 321-330.
39. Muller, P. and Y. Surel (1998) L'Analyse des politiques publiques. Paris: Montchrestien.
40. O'Connor, M., S. van Hove, J. O'Neill and C. Hue (2001/2002) Le Modèle politique de la démocratie délibérative. C3ED, Département de Sciences Economiques et Management. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. EEE-SDP Module ‘Gouvernance’. 50 pp.
41. OECD (1997a) OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: A Practical Introduction. OECD Environment Monograph. OCDE/GD(97)35. Paris: OECD.
42. OECD (1997b) Workshop on the Second Cycle of Reviews. Lessons from the First Cycle of Reviews (document prepared by the Finnish Delegation). OECD Environment Directorate/Environment Policy Committee, Group on Environmental Performance. Paris, 17 Nov. 1997. Room document No. 12 for the workshop.
43. OECD (2001a) OECD Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development. Paris: OECD.
44. OECD (2001b) Indicateurs clés d'environnement. Paris: OECD.
45. Owen, J. M. (2002) ‘Organisational Learning as an Accountability Commitment: Lessons from Innovative Practice’, paper presented at the Conference of the European Evaluation Society ‘Three Movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence’, 10-12 Oct., Seville.
46. Pagani, F. (2002) Peer Review: A Tool for Co-operation and Change. An Analysis of an OECD Working Method. Paris: OECD. SG/LEG(2002)1.
47. Patton, M. Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48. Patton, M. Q. (1998) ‘Discovering Process Use’, Evaluation 4(2): 225-233.
49. Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.
50. Perrin, B. (1998) ‘Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement’, American Journal of Evaluation 19(3): 367-379.
51. Perrin, B. (1999) ‘Performance Measurement: Does the Reality Match the Rhetoric? A Rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston’, American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 101-111.
52. Perrin, B. (2002) ‘Towards a New View of Accountability’, paper presented at the Conference of the European Evaluation Society ‘Three Movements in Contemporary Evaluation: Learning, Theory and Evidence’, 10-12 Oct., Seville.
53. Pitarelli, E. and E. Monnier (2000) ‘Benchmarking: The Missing Link between Evaluation and Management?’, paper presented at the European Evaluation Society Fourth Conference ‘Taking Evaluation to the People: Between Civil Society, Public Management and the Polity’, 12-14 Oct., Lausanne.
54. Pollit, C. (1998) ‘Evaluation in Europe: Boom or Bubble?’, Evaluation 4(2): 214-224.
55. Radaelli, C. M. (1995) ‘The Role of Knowledge in the Policy Process’, Journal of European Public Policy 2(2): 159-183.
56. Saarikoski, H. (2000) ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as Collaborative Learning Process’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(6): 681-700.
57. Sabatier, P. A. (1987) ‘Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation 8(4): 649-692.
58. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
59. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith (1999) ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 117-166. Boulder, CO: Westview.
60. Sairinen, R. (2000) Regulatory Reform of Finnish Environmental Policy. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications A 27.
61. Schubert, U., A. Martinuzzi, E. Huchler, M. E. Langer and B. Obermayr (2000) ‘Evaluation Nachhaltiger Entwicklung: Herausforderung für Methodenentwicklung und Evaluationspraxis’, in M. Härtel and R. Stockmann (eds) Berufliche Umweltbildung und Umweltberatung: Grundlagen, Konzepte und Wirkungsmessung. Bielefeld: Buchreihe des Bundesinstituts für Berufsbildung (BIBB). Bertelsmann-Verlag. http://www.sustainability.at/easy.
62. Schwandt, T. A. (2001) ‘A Postscript on Thinking about Dialogue’, Evaluation 7(2): 264-276.
63. Siebenhühner, B. (2001) ‘How do Scientific Assessments Learn? A Comparative Study of LRTAP and IPCC’, paper presented at ‘Frontiers 1’ European Society for Ecological Economics Conference, 4-7 July, Cambridge.
64. Söderbaum, P. (2000) Ecological Economics: A Political Economics Approach to Environment and Development. London: Earthscan.
65. Söderbaum, P. (2001) ‘Political Economic Person, Ideological Orientation and Institutional Change: On Competition between Schemes of Interpretation in Economics’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 12: 179-197.
66. Strang, D. and P. M. Y. Chang (1993) ‘The International Labour Organisation and the Welfare State: Institutional Effects on National Welfare Spending, 1960-1980’, International Organization 47(2): 235-262.
67. Tamminen, R., A. Manninen and J. Pellinen (1999) ‘The Concept of Accountability: From Stewardship to Discipline’, Hallinnon tutkimus (Administrative Studies) 18(1): 33-47.
68. Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, C. (2002) ‘Evaluation in an Age of Indicators: Challenges for Public Sector Management’, Evaluation 8(1): 140-148.
69. Thoenig, J.-C. (2000) ‘Evaluation as Usable Knowledge for Public Management Reforms’, Evaluation 6(2): 217-229.
70. Uusikylä, P. (1999) ‘Politiikan ja hallinnon arviointi (Evaluation of Policy and Administration)’, in R. Eräsaari, T. Lindqvist, M. Mäntysaari and M. Rajavaara (eds) Arviointi ja asiantuntijuus(Evaluation and Expertise), pp. 17-30. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
71. Valovirta, V. (2002) ‘Evaluation Utilization as Argumentation’, Evaluation 8(1): 60-80.
72. Van der Knaap, P. (1995) ‘Policy Evaluation and Learning: Feedback, Enlightenment or Argumentation?’, Evaluation 1(2): 189-216.
73. Van der Knaap, P. (2000) ‘Performance Management and Policy Evaluation in the Netherlands: Towards an Integrated Approach’, Evaluation 6(3): 335-350.
74. Vedung, E. (1991) Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
75. Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
76. Weiss, C. H. (1980) ‘Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation 1(3): 381-404.
77. Weiss, C. H. (1987) ‘The Circuitry of Enlightenment: Diffusion of Social Science Research to Policymakers’, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation 8(2): 274-281.
78. Weiss, C. H. (1998) ‘Have we Learned Anything New about the Use of Evaluation?’, American Journal of Evaluation 19(1): 21-33.
79. Weiss, C. H. (1999) ‘The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy’, Evaluation 5(4): 468-486.
80. Wimbush, E. and J. Watson (2000) ‘An Evaluation Framework for Health Promotion: Theory, Quality and Effectiveness’, Evaluation 6(3): 301-321.