Revising swiss policies: The influence of efficiency analyses

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 494-517

  Frey, Kathrin ^a   Widmer, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

effectiveness; efficiency; evaluation influence; evidence based policy making

Indexed keywords

EID: 81255149943     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214011401902     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Amara N.,Ouimet M.,Réjean L.New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies.Science Communication. 2004;26:75-106.
2. Askim J.Performance information in the public sector. How it is used. Van Dooren W.Van de Walle S., ed. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008:125-139.
3. Balthasar A.Institutionelle Verankerung und Verwendung von Evaluation[Institutional anchorage and utilization of evaluation]. Zürich: Rüegger; 2007:.
4. Balthasar A.Institutional design and utilization of evaluation: A contribution to a theory of evaluation influence based on Swiss experience.Evaluation Review. 2009;33:226-256.
5. Bennett C.,Howlett M.The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change.Policy Sciences. 1992;25:275-294.
6. Chen H. -T.Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990:.
7. Public expenditure. Effective management and control. Corry D., ed. London: Dryden Press; 1997:.
8. Approaches to assessing the non-academic impact of social science research. 2005:.
9. Donaldson S. I.,Christie C. A.,Mark M. M.What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice?. Los Angeles, CA: Sage;.
10. Duperrut J.Regulierungsfolgenabschätzung, KMU-Verträglichkeitstest und Forum KMU: Bescheidener Einfluss.Die Volkswirtschaft. 2005;11:47-50.
11. Eckhardt A.,Seitz E.Wirtschaftliche Bewertung von Sicherheitsmassnahmen [Economic assessment of safety measures]. 1998:.
12. Efionayi-Mäder D.,Chimienti M.,Dahinden J.,Piguet E.Asyldestination Europa. Eine Geographie der Asylbewegungen [Asylum destination Europe. A geography of asylum migration]. Zürich: Seismo; 2001:.
13. Esterling K. M.The political economy of expertise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2004:.
14. Farrington D. P.Methodological quality standards for evaluation research.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2003;587:49-68.
15. Frey K. Paper presented at the EGPA Conference; 2009 2009St. Julian's, Malta; 2009 2009.
16. Frey K.Revising road safety policy: The role of systematic evidence in Switzerland.Governance. 2010;23:667-690.
17. Frey K.,Ledermann S.Introduction: Evidence-based policy: A concept in geographical and substantive expansion.German Policy Studies. 2010;6:1-15.
18. George A. L.,Bennett A.Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005:.
19. Gerring J.Case study research. Principles and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007:.
20. Güttinger F.,Gschwend P.,Schulte B.,Rehm J.,Uchtenhagen A.Die Lebenssituation von Drogenabhängigen der Heroin gestützten Behandlung in der Schweiz - Eine 6-Jahres-Katamnese.Sucht. 2002;48:370-378.
21. Hansen H. F.,Rieper O.The evidence movement. The development and consequences of methodologies in review practices.Evaluation. 2009;15:141-163.
22. Henry G. T.,Mark M. M.Beyond use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions.American Journal of Evaluation. 2003;24:293-314.
23. Interdepartmental Group on Effectiveness Control [Interdepartementale Kontaktgruppe Wirkungspr üfung] (2004). Wirksamkeit von Bundesmassnahmen Vorschläge zur Umsetzung von Artikel 170 der Bundesverfassung bei Bundesrat und Bundesverwaltung. Bericht der Interdepartementalen Kontaktgruppe "Wirkungsprüfungen" an die Generalsekretärenkonferenz der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft [Effectiveness of federal measures. Recommendations for the implementation of the article 170 of the Federal Constitution to the Federal Council and the Federal Parliament]. Bern, Federal Office of Justice.
24. James O.,Lodge M.The limitations of "policy transfer" and "lesson drawing" for public policy.Political Studies Review. 2003;1:179-193.
25. Janett D.Die Evaluationsfunktion des Bundesparlaments - eine Zwischenbilanz.LeGes-Gesetzgebung & Evaluation. 2004;15:137-150.
26. Jones B. D.,Baumgartner F. R.The politics of attention. How Government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2005:.
27. Killias M.,Aebi M.,Ribeaud D.,Rabasa J.Schlussbericht zu den Auswirkungen der Verschreibung von Betäubungsmitteln auf die Delinquenz von Drogenabhängigen. 3. Auflage mit Langzeitanalyse [Final report about the effects of heroin prescription on the delinquency of drug addicts]. 2002). Schlussbericht zu den Auswirkungen der Verschreibung von Betäubungsmitteln auf die Delinquenz von Drogenabhängigen. 3. Auflage mit Langzeitanalyse [Final report about the effects of heroin prescription on the delinquency of drug addicts]. 3rd Editionwith long-time analysis.Lausanne: Institut de police scientifique et de criminologie.Lausanne: Institut de police scientifique et de criminologie; 2002:.
28. Kirkhart K. E.Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence.New Directions for Evaluation. 2000;88:5-23.
29. Klöti U.,Schneider G.Informationsbeschaffung des Gesetzgebers[Information Gathering of the Legislator]. Grüsch: Rüegger; 1989:.
30. Kvale S.,Brinkmann S.Interviews. 2009). In Interviews.2nd ed.Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2009:.
31. Leviton L. C.Evaluation use: Advances, challenges and applications.American Journal of Evaluation. 2003;24:525-535.
32. Leviton L. C.,Boruch R. F.Contributions of evaluation to education programs and policy.Evaluation Review. 1983;7:563-598.
33. Lindenmann H. P.,Koy T.Beurteilung der Auswirkungen von Zonensignalisationen (Tempo 30) in Wohngebieten auf die Verkehrssicherheit. 2000:.
34. Mark M. M.,Henry G. T.The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluations influence.Evaluation. 2004;10:35-57.
35. Mohr L. B.Impact analysis for program evaluation. 1995). Impact analysis for program evaluation.2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:.
36. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-10-01, October 7, 2009. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President; 2009:.
37. Evaluation der Zwangsmassnahmen im Ausländerrecht Evaluation of the coercive measures in the Foreign Nationals Act. Bern: Parlamentsdienste; 2005:.
38. Parsons W.From muddling through to muddling up - evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British government.Public Policy and Administration. 2002;17:43-60.
39. Parsons W.Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence.Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2004;63:43-57.
40. Patton M. Q.Utilization-focused evaluation. 2008). Utilization-focused evaluation.4th ed.Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008:.
41. Pawson R.Evidence-based policy. A realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006:.
42. Pollitt C.Justification by works or by faith.Evaluation. 1995;1:133-154.
43. Pollitt C.Performance information for democracy. The missing link?.Evaluation. 2006;12:38-55.
44. Posavac E. J.,Carey R. G.Program evaluation. Methods and case studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1989:.
45. Radaelli C. M.The role of knowledge in the policy process.Journal of European Public Policy. 1995;2:159-183.
46. Sanderson I.Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making.Public Administration. 2002;80:1-22.
47. Schmidhauser S.,Wieser S.,Kauer L.,Brügger U.Returns on investment in prevention and health promotion measures in Switzerland. Review of methodological literature on economic evaluation of health promotion and prevention with focus on cost-benefit analysis. Winterthur: Winterthur Institute of Health Economics WIG, Zurich University of Applied Sciences; 2008:.
48. Schwartz R.,Mayne J.Quality matters. Seeking confidence in evaluating, auditing, and performance reporting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; 2005:.
49. Shulha L. M.,Cousins B. J.Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986.Evaluation Practice. 1997;18:195-208.
50. Simon H. A.Administrative behaviour: A study of decision making processes in administrative organizations. 1976). Administrative behaviour: A study of decision making processes in administrative organizations.3rd ed.London: Collier-Macmillan.London: Collier-Macmillan; 1976:.
51. Surel Y.The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making.Journal of European Public Policy. 2000;7:495-512.
52. Richtlinien des Bundesrates für die Darstellung der volks wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen von Vorlagen des Bundes vom 15. 1999:.
53. Die heroingestützte Behandlung/Behandlung mit Diacetylmorphin (HeGeBe) im Jahr 2006[Heroin-assisted treatment in the year 2006]. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Public Health; 2007:.
54. Zwangsmassnahmen im Ausländerrecht. Situationsbericht[Coercive measures in the Foreign Nationals Act. State of affairs]. Bern: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe; 1995:.
55. Uchtenhagen A.Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland: A case study in policy change.Addiction. 2010;105:29-37.
56. Rollen statt Rasen. Erfolgskontrolle [Crawling instead of rushing. Success control]. Bern: Stadtplanungsamt; 2001:.
57. Vedung E.Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; 1997:.
58. Webber D.The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process.Knowledge and Policy. 1991;4:6-35.
59. Weiss C. H.Utilizing evaluation: Concepts and measurement techniques. Ciarlo J. A., ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1981:17-33.
60. Weiss C. H.Social science and social policy. Bulmer M.Banting K. G.Blume S. S.Carley M.Weiss C. H., ed. London: Allen & Unwin; 1986:31-40.
61. Weiss C. H.Evaluation. Methods for studying programs and policies. 1998a). Evaluation. Methods for studying programs and policies.2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998a:.
62. Weiss C. H.Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?.American Journal of Evaluation. 1998b;19:21-33.
63. Weiss C. H.,Bucuvalas M. J.Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers' frames of reference for social science research.American Sociological Review. 1980;45:302-313.
64. Widmer T.Evaluationsansätze und ihre Effekte: Erfahrungen aus verschiedenen Politikfeldern.Leviathan Sonderheft. 2008a;24:267-287.
65. Widmer T.Evaluation in der Aussenpolitik: Gründe für eine Evaluationslücke.Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen. 2008b;15:125-137.
66. Widmer T.The contribution of evidence-based policy to the output-oriented legitimacy of the state.Evidence & Policy. 2009;5:351-372.
67. Widmer T.,Frey K.Evaluation von Mehrebenen-Netzwerkstrategien.Zeitschrift für Evaluation. 2006;5:287-316.
68. Widmer T.,Rüegg E.Konsequenzen von Staatsreformen für die demokratische Steuerungsfähigkeit. Vergleichende Analyse zu vier Schweizer Kantonen.Politische Vierteljahresschrift. 2005;46:86-109.
69. Widmer T.,Neuenschwander P.Embedding evaluation in the Swiss federal administration. Purpose, institutional design and utilization.Evaluation. 2004;10:388-409.
70. Widmer T.,Beywl W.,Fabian C.Evaluation. Ein systematisches Handbuch [Evaluation: A Systematic Handbook]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag; 2009:.
71. Yin R.Case study research: Design and methods. 2009). Case study research: Design and methods.4th ed.Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2009:.
72. Zollinger C.Gründe für die Produktion staatlicher Performanceinformationen. Eine vergleichende Analyse staatlicher Massnahmen der Verkehrs- und Migrationspolitik der Schweiz. Lizentiatsarbeit [Reasons for the production of public performance information. A comparative analysis of traffic and asylum measures in Switzerland]. Zürich: Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Zürich; 2009:.