Policy Evaluation

Evaluation of public policies is not easy both technically and institutionally. There are several technical challenges for the evaluator to overcome: the correlation between a policy and its results is not always causal, and the evaluator needs to take into account factors such as reverse causality and policy interactions with many other actors. Evaluation is also difficult from an institutional point of view, because reliable evaluation is possible only through a carefully prepared procedure before public policy is put into effect. Evaluation of a public policy involves the use of a number of criteria to develop that policy and inform decision-makers. The purpose of the assessment is to compare the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of the goals set, the results achieved, and the tools used within the institutional framework.

Regulatory impact assessment is one of the most debated instruments of evaluation of public policies in Turkey. Although efforts on the widespread implementation of regulatory impact analysis in Turkey have started, it is seen that they are not realized at a satisfactory level. A variety of social and political obstacles such as administrative barriers, methodological barriers, and lack of knowledge of the required methods and techniques are encountered in the principles and practices regarding the evaluation of public policies in Turkey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 42.79 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Notes

Reverse causality is a concept that states that there is a relationship between the two concepts, but this relationship is not in the direction that the researcher expects. The researcher thinks that A leads to B, but in reality it is B that leads to A. See Katz (1999).

For example, data such as the number of students per teacher, the number of beds per 1000 people, the number of patients per doctor, and the number of cases that each social worker deals with are important standards.

“We cannot be satisfied with measuring how many times a bird flaps its wings; we must know how far the bird has flown” (Dye 2002: 64).

This phenomenon implies the impossibility of observing the same conditions for the same individuals at the same time. See Phillips et al. (2002).

Among the EU member states, the country that uses impact assessment the most is the United Kingdom, where it is imperative to make an impact assessment for all bills, regardless of the financial value of the estimated impact.

In the European Commission’s 2002 Communication on Impact Assessment, it is emphasized that budgetary preliminary assessment differs from impact assessment in terms of both function and objectives. Accordingly, the preliminary assessment is primarily aimed at determining whether the proposed spending programs and activities are cost-effective for the EU budget. In contrast, impact assessment is a “policy-based” activity that focuses on examining whether major policy proposals are sustainable and follow Better Regulation Principles.

These projects include major investments with projected remarkable environmental impact such as refineries, thermal power plants, nuclear plants, metal industry facilities, iron foundries, asbestos processing plants, chemical plants, highways, airports, and ports. See Annex-I to the Environmental Impact Assessment By-Law published on 17 July 2008 in the Official Gazette no. 26939.

References

• Abelson, J., & Gauvin, F. P. (2006). Assessing the impacts of public participation: Concepts, evidence and policy implications. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Google Scholar
• Akyıldız, F., & Demir, F. (2011). Beşinci Yılında Bilgi Edinme Hakkı: Uşak İli Örneği. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 588–612. Google Scholar
• Aras, N. E. G., & Mencütek, Z. Ş. (2018). Evaluation of irregular migration governance in Turkey from a foreign policy perspective. New Perspectives on Turkey, 59, 63–88. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Aykın, S. M. (2010). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne Sürdürülebilir Katılımı İçin Düzenleyici Etki Analizinin Gerekliliği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 227–242. Google Scholar
• Baker, J. M., & Westman, C. N. (2018). Extracting knowledge: Social science, environmental impact assessment, and Indigenous consultation in the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. The Extractive Industries and Society, 5(1), 144–153. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bilgin, A. (2015). Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 53, 40–51. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2002). Impact evaluation of a national, community-based program for at-risk children in Canada. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 28(3), 461–481. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Burdge, R. J., Chamley, S., Downs, M., Finsterbusch, K., Freudenburg, B., Fricke, P., & Thompson, J. G. (2003). Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(3), 231–250. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T. R., & Cayer, N. J. (1993). American Public Policy: An introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Google Scholar
• Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
• Ekici, B. (2006). Düzenleyici etki analizi: kanun, kanun hükmünde kararname, tüzük, yönetmelik ve diğer düzenlemelerde uygulanması. Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı. Google Scholar
• Ekici, B., & Çelik, M. (2007). Düzenleyici Etki Analizi: Analiz Süreci ve Uygulama. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40(1), 135–158. Google Scholar
• Elvan, O. D. (2018). Analysis of environmental impact assessment practices and legislation in Turkey. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 1–6. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• European Commission. (2002). Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment, COM(2002) 276 final. Brussels. Google Scholar
• Francesco, F. D. (2012). Diffusion of regulatory impact analysis among OECD and EU member states. Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1277–1305. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Giorgi, L., & Pohoryles, R. (2005). Challenges to EU political integration and the role of democratization, innovation. The European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 407–418. Google Scholar
• Gül, H., & Kiriş, H. M. (2015). Democratic governance reforms in Turkey and their implications. In Public administration and policy in the Middle East (pp. 25–59). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
• Katz, M. H. (1999). Multivariable analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Kaymak, H. (2004). Düzenleyici Etki Analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 8(3), 107–131. Google Scholar
• Kibritçioğlu, A. (2005). Banking sector crises and related new regulations in Turkey. Economia Exterior, 32. Google Scholar
• Kronvang, B., Grant, R., Larsen, S. E., Svendsen, L. M., & Kristensen, P. (1995). Non-point-source nutrient losses to the aquatic environment in Denmark: Impact of agriculture. Marine and Freshwater Research, 46(1), 167–177. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Phillips, P. J., Sarkar, S., Robledo, I., Grother, P., & Bowyer, K. (2002). The gait identification challenge problem: Data sets and baseline algorithm. In Pattern recognition, 2002. In Proceedings. 16th international conference (Vol. 1, pp. 385–388). IEEE. Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1966). Open society and its enemies. complete: Volumes I and II (5th ed.). https://monoskop.org/images/5/5f/Popper_Karl_The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies_Vols_1-2_5th_ed.pdf. Last accessed: 19 July 2018.
• Prime Ministry of Turkey Regulatory Reform Group. (2009). Introducing regulatory impact analysis into the Turkish Legal system. Ankara.Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sözen, S. (2012). Recent administrative reforms in Turkey: A preliminary assessment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 168–173. Google Scholar
• State Planning Organization. (2007). 9th Development Plan. Ankara. Google Scholar
• Telli, Ç., Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, E. (2008). Economics of environmental policy in Turkey: A general equilibrium investigation of the economic evaluation of sectoral emission reduction policies for climate change. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(2), 321–340. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wollmann, H. (2007). Policy evaluation and evaluation research. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 393–404). Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Manisa, Turkey Fatih Demir

1. Fatih Demir