Evaluation policy in the European Union and its institutions

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2009, Issue 123, 2009, Pages 67-85

  Stern, Elliot ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950760585     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.306     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bedea, C. (2008). Evaluation standards and professionalisation in Romania. Presentation at European Evaluation Society Conference, Lisbon.
2. Bienias, S. (2009, March). Evaluation of structural instruments in Poland: Experience in evaluation capacity building. Presentation at Evaluation of EU Structural Funds: Reinforcing Quality and Utilisation Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania.
3. Bosch, H. (2008, July). Evaluation and parliamentary oversight. Speech by chair of European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control to Evaluation Symposium, Strasbourg.
4. EPEC (European Policy Evaluation Consortium). (2005). Study on the use of evaluation results in the Commission: Final report. Brussels.
5. EUREVAL & Ramboll Consulting. (2008). Meta-study on lessons from existing evaluations as an input to the review of EU spending. DG Budget, European Commission, Brussels.
6. European Commission Section
7. COM. (2001). European governance: A white paper (Document No. COM (2001) 428 Final). Brussels.
8. COM. (2002). Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment (Document No. COM (2002) 276). Brussels.
9. COM. (2005). Europe 2010—A partnership for European renewal: Strategic objectives 2005–2009. Prosperity, solidarity and security. Communication from the president in agreement with Vice-President Wallstrom (Document No. COM (2005) 12 Final). Brussels.
10. COM. (2008). Evaluation in the Commission reporting on results: Annual evaluation review 2007. Conclusions and findings from evaluations in the commission (Document No. COM (2008) 300). Brussels.
11. Evaluating EU activities: A practical guide for the Commission Services. (2004). July DG BUDGET, Evaluation Unit. Brussels.
12. Financial regulation and implementing rules applicable to the general budget of the European Communities: Synoptic presentation and a selection of legal texts relevant to establishing and implementing the budgets. (2008). Luxembourg.
13. Impact Assessment Guidelines. (2005). Brussels.
14. Multi-annual overview of finalized evaluations classified per ABB-activity 2002–2007. (2008). DG Budget. Brussels.
15. Report from the commission on subsidiarity and proportionality (15th report on better lawmaking). (2007). Brussels.
16. SEC. (1996). SEM 2000 communication on evaluation, concrete steps towards best practice across the commission (Document No. SEC 96/659). Brussels.
17. SEC. (2000). Strengthening evaluation of commission activities, communication to the commission from Mrs. Schreyer in agreement with Mr. Kinnock and the president according to action 16 of the action plan for reform focus on results (Document No. SEC (2000) 1051). Brussels.
18. SEC. (2007). Responding to strategic needs: Reinforcing the use of evaluation, communication to the commission from Ms. Grybauskaité in agreement with the president (Document No. SEC (2007) 213). Brussels.
19. Statistical overview of commission evaluations. (2008). Brussels.
20. European Court of Auditors. (2005, November). Audit guidelines on evaluation. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from http://www.riksrevisjonen.no/NR/rdonlyres/874C9D2D-6A40–4580-BF92-E3AE939BFC47/0/ECAAUDITGUIDELINESONEVALUATION.pdf
21. EVALSED. (2007). Sourcebook on capacity development: Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Guide to evaluation of socio economic development. DG REGIO. Brussels.
22. The Evaluation Partnership (TEP). (2007). Evaluation of commission's Impact Assessment system. Secretariat General of the European Commission. Brussels.
23. Furubo, J.-E., Rist, R. C., & Sandahl, R. (Eds.). (2002). International atlas of evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
24. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces 1950–1957. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Hayward, J., & Menon, A. (Eds.). (2003). Governing Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Hjern, B., & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211–227.
27. Kickert, W., & van Vught, F. (Eds.). (1995). Public policy & administration sciences in the Netherlands. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
28. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526.
29. Loney, M. (1983). Community against government: The British Community Development Project 1968–1978. London: Heinemann.
30. Majone, G. (1996). A European regulatory state? In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union, power and policy making. London: Routledge.
31. Maris, P., & Rein, M. (1967). Dilemmas of social reform: Poverty and community action in the United States. New York: Atherton Press.
32. Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The state of the European Community: The Maastricht debates and beyond (Vol. 2, pp. 391–410). London: Longman.
33. Ministry of Finance, Republic of Lithuania. (2009, March). Evaluation of EU Structural Funds: reinforcing quality and utilisation. Conference proceedings. Vilnius, Lithuania.
34. Ministry of Public Finance, Romania. (2006, November). National evaluation strategy. Presentation at launch of national strategy. Bucharest.
35. Mitrany, D. (1965). The prospect of integration: Federal or functional? Journal of Common Market Studies, 4, 119–149.
36. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European integration. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
38. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48.
39. Stern, E. (2006, November). Second Polish evaluation conference: Ex ante evaluation for structural policies, synthesis report. Conference organized jointly by the Polish Ministry of Regional Development and the Polish Enterprise Agency. Warsaw.
40. Tavistock Institute, London, Net Effect Ltd., Helsinki, Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, Milan. (2005). Open Method of Co-ordination: How the Europe OMC worked—Implications for the co-ordination of policy under i2010. Brussels: DG Information Society.
41. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
42. Vinas, V. (2009). The European Union's drive towards public policy evaluation: The case of Spain. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 15(3).
43. Wollman, H. (Ed.). (2003). Evaluation in public sector reform: Concepts and practice in international perspective. Cheltenham/Northampton: Elgar.
44. Zeitlin, J., & Pochet, P., with Magnusson, L. (Eds.). (2005). The Open Method of Coordination in action: The European employment and social inclusion strategies. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.