Policies for evidence: a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
T. Chirau, Caitlin Blaser-Mapitsa, Matodzi M. Amisi
{"title":"Policies for evidence: a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape","authors":"T. Chirau, Caitlin Blaser-Mapitsa, Matodzi M. Amisi","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: African countries are developing their monitoring and evaluation policies to systematise, structure and institutionalise evaluations and use of evaluative evidence across the government sector. The pace at which evaluations are institutionalised and systematised across African governments is progressing relatively slowly.Aims and objectives: This article offers a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape. The article looks at the policies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya (not adopted) and Uganda. To achieve the aim we unpack the different characteristics taken by the national evaluation policies, emerging lessons for countries who wish to develop a national evaluation policy, and key challenges faced by countries with regard to evaluation policy development and implementation. The article draws on both a desktop review and action research approaches from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa to build national evaluation systems across the region. The approach has included peer learning and co-creation of knowledge around public sector evaluation systems.Key conclusions: The national evaluation policies reviewed share certain common features in terms of purpose and composition. They are also struggling with common issues of institutionalising the evaluation system across the public sector. However, there are variations in the countries’ guiding governance frameworks at a national level that shape the nature and content of policies, as well as the ways through which the policies themselves are expected to guide the use of evaluative evidence for decision and policymaking, and programming.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: African countries are developing their monitoring and evaluation policies to systematise, structure and institutionalise evaluations and use of evaluative evidence across the government sector. The pace at which evaluations are institutionalised and systematised across African governments is progressing relatively slowly.Aims and objectives: This article offers a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape. The article looks at the policies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya (not adopted) and Uganda. To achieve the aim we unpack the different characteristics taken by the national evaluation policies, emerging lessons for countries who wish to develop a national evaluation policy, and key challenges faced by countries with regard to evaluation policy development and implementation. The article draws on both a desktop review and action research approaches from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa to build national evaluation systems across the region. The approach has included peer learning and co-creation of knowledge around public sector evaluation systems.Key conclusions: The national evaluation policies reviewed share certain common features in terms of purpose and composition. They are also struggling with common issues of institutionalising the evaluation system across the public sector. However, there are variations in the countries’ guiding governance frameworks at a national level that shape the nature and content of policies, as well as the ways through which the policies themselves are expected to guide the use of evaluative evidence for decision and policymaking, and programming.
证据政策:非洲国家评价政策格局的比较分析
背景:非洲国家正在制定其监测和评价政策,以使整个政府部门的评价和评价证据的使用系统化、结构化和制度化。非洲各国政府将评估制度化和系统化的步伐进展相对缓慢。目的和目标:本文对非洲国家评价政策格局进行了比较分析。这篇文章考察了津巴布韦、南非、尼日利亚、肯尼亚(未被采纳)和乌干达的政策。为了实现这一目标,我们分析了国家评价政策的不同特点,希望制定国家评价政策的国家的新经验,以及各国在评价政策制定和实施方面面临的主要挑战。本文借鉴了非洲英语国家评价与成果学习中心的桌面审查和行动研究方法,在整个地区建立了国家评价系统。该方法包括围绕公共部门评估系统进行同行学习和共同创造知识。关键结论:所审查的国家评价政策在目的和组成方面具有某些共同特点。他们还在努力解决公共部门评估体系制度化的共同问题。然而,各国在国家一级的指导性治理框架存在差异,这些差异决定了政策的性质和内容,以及政策本身如何指导在决策和政策制定以及方案编制中使用评价性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信