IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp139-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tracing the use of evaluations in legislative processes in Swiss cantonal parliaments

Author

Listed:
  • Eberli, Daniela

Abstract

Several studies have challenged the notion that members of parliament use information from evaluations to make policies. However, it is also argued that the function of evaluations in an inherently political context such as parliament is to provide arguments and justifications rather than simply supply information for policymaking. This paper provides a fine-grained account of the use of evaluations by members of parliament in the context of political conflict. Previous research has highlighted the importance of this factor, but the findings are controversial. Here, four case studies of policy processes in two Swiss cantonal parliaments illustrate that political conflict is highly context-specific. Documentary analysis and interviews show that the members of parliament used evaluations to inform themselves as well as to gain political support in the moderately contested case. This both supports and challenges previous research. Comparing the cases reveals that the administration’s use of evaluations strongly influences their use in the non-professional cantonal parliaments. However, Switzerland's semi-direct democracy and its conflict-resolving mechanisms shape and limit this role, particularly if political conflict is high.

Suggested Citation

  • Eberli, Daniela, 2018. "Tracing the use of evaluations in legislative processes in Swiss cantonal parliaments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 139-147.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:139-147
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916301252
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol H. Weiss, 1989. "Congressional committees as users of analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 411-431.
    2. Mahoney, James & Goertz, Gary, 2004. "The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 653-669, November.
    3. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David J. Pannell, 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 535-555, September.
    2. Ilana Shpaizman, 2020. "The end–means nexus and policy conversion: evidence from two cases in Israeli immigrant integration policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 713-733, December.
    3. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    5. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    6. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    7. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    8. Allan McConnell & Liam Grealy & Tess Lea, 2020. "Policy success for whom? A framework for analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 589-608, December.
    9. Maximilian Lemprière & Vivien Lowndes, 2019. "Why did the North East Combined Authority fail to achieve a devolution deal with the UK government?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(2), pages 149-166, March.
    10. Thomas Ambrosio & Jakob Tolstrup, 2019. "How do we tell authoritarian diffusion from illusion? Exploring methodological issues of qualitative research on authoritarian diffusion," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(6), pages 2741-2763, November.
    11. Allan McConnell & Paul ’t Hart, 2019. "Inaction and public policy: understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing’," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 645-661, December.
    12. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    13. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    14. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    15. Nair, Lakshmi Balachandran & Gibbert, Michael, 2016. "Analyzing inconsistent cases in Management fsQCA studies: A methodological manifesto," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1464-1470.
    16. Witting Antje, 2015. "Measuring the Use of Knowledge in Policy Development," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 54-62, December.
    17. Lundin, Martin & Öberg, PerOla, 2012. "Towards reason: political disputes, public attention and the use of expert knowledge in policymaking," Working Paper Series 2012:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    18. Bruce A. Desmarais & John A. Hird, 2014. "Public policy's bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 497-510, December.
    19. Bernhard Reinsberg, 2019. "Do countries use foreign aid to buy geopolitical influence?: Evidence from donor campaigns for temporary UN Security Council seats," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-4, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Federico Varese, 2005. "How Mafias Migrate: The Case of the `Ndrangheta in Northern Italy," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _059, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:139-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.