Going Beyond Evidence

Evaluation of and for Policy Advice
  • Dorota Stasiak
  • Andrea Römmele
  • Henrik SchoberEmail author


Evaluation research can provide policy advice on the basis of evidence that it is increasingly expected to rely upon. At the same time, policy advice itself can take on the role of the evaluandum and become the very object of evaluation. Both these dimensions of the evaluation-advice interface merit attention. However, while there are criteria for the evaluation of policy advice, the use of evaluation for policy advice remains a black box, as this is part of less formal communication and consultation. This notwithstanding, this article will offer an introduction to the various reasons for – as well as various contexts of – evaluation’s increasing importance in policy advice.


Evaluation Policy advice Evidence-based policy-making Political action Agenda setting 


  1. Australian National Audit Office [ANAO]. 2001. Developing policy advice.
  2. Bekkers, Victor, Menno Fenger, Vincent Homburg, and Kim Putters. 2004. Doorwerking van strategische beleidsadvisering. Rotterdam/Tilburg: Erasmus University/University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  3. Brede, Falko. 2006. Gesundheitspolitik und Politikberatung. Eine vergleichende Analyse deutscher und kanadischer Erfahrungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Di Francesco, Michael. 2001. Process not outcomes in new public management? ‘Policy coherence’ in Australian government. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs 1(3): 103–116.Google Scholar
  6. Independent Evaluation Unit of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (IEU-UNODC). 2017. Meta-analysis of evaluation reports 01/2015-12/2016. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  7. Jayaraman, Rajshri, and Jörg Rocholl. 2017. Research-based policy advice to the G20.
  8. Kelly, Paul R. 2015. Our need to talk about power & knowledge in evaluation & policy cultures.
  9. Kienbaum, Gerhard, and Dirk Meissner. 1979. Zur Problematik des Effizienznachweises von Beratung. Ansätze im Beratungsprozeß. Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis 31(2): 109–116.Google Scholar
  10. Kieser, Alfred. 1998. Immer mehr Geld für Unternehmensberatung – und wofür? Organisationsentwicklung 17(2): 62–69.Google Scholar
  11. Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011. Introduction: The quest for quality as a challenge to scientific policy advice: An overdue debate? In The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance, ed. Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1909–14. The prince, The Harvard classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son.
  13. Mayer Igor S., C. Els van Daalen, and Pieter W. G. Bots. 2013. Perspectives on policy analysis: A framework for understanding and design. In Public policy analysis, International series in operations research & management science, ed. Wil A. H. Thissen and Warren E. Walker, 41–64. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Mayntz, Renate. 2009. Speaking Truth to Power: Leitlinien für die Regelung wissenschaftlicher Politikberatung. dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 1: 5–16.Google Scholar
  15. McGann, James. 2016. The fifth estate. Think tanks, public policy, and governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  16. OECD DAC. 2002. OECD DAC glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management. Paris: OECD Development Assistance Committee.Google Scholar
  17. Opolski, Krzysztof, and Piotr Modzelewski. 2011. The use of evaluation in the process of designing a strategy. In Evaluation at strategic level of governance, ed. Agnieszka Haber and Maciej Szałaj, 23–38. Radom: Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Patton, Carl V., David S. Sawicki, and Jennifer Clark. 1986. Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Schmidt, Christoph. 2014. Wirkungstreffer erzielen – Die Rolle der evidenzbasierten Politikberatung in einer aufgeklärten Gesellschaft. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 15(3): 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szarfenberg, Ryszard. 2006. Słabości trzeciego sektora i partnerstwa publiczno-prywatnego [Weaknesses of the third sector and public-privatepartnerships]. Warszawski: Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
  21. Van de Walle, Steven, and Wouter Van Dooren. 2010. How is information used to improve performance in the public sector: Exploring the dynamics of performance information. In Connecting knowledge and performance in public services: From knowing to doing, ed. Kieran Walshe, Gil Harvey, and Pauline Jas, 33–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Weiss, Carol. 1980. Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge. Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381–404.Google Scholar
  23. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1979. Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wissenschaftsrat. 2014. Aufgaben, Kriterien und Verfahren des Evaluationsausschusses des Wissenschaftsrates.
  25. Woolcock, Michael. 2009. Toward a plurality of methods in project evaluation: A contextualised approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorota Stasiak
    • 1
  • Andrea Römmele
    • 2
  • Henrik Schober
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) e.V.PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Hertie School of GovernanceBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations