Chapter 18: Policy evaluation and international organizations
Restricted access

Owing to their nature as information brokers with a comparative perspective, IOs offer a natural venue to better understand which policy interventions work and how. In recent years specific procedures and ad hoc units to advance the practice and culture of evaluation in IOs have rapidly grown. The chapter conceives IOs as autonomous policy actors that employ evaluation as a strategic governing tool and takes stock of existing literature to analyze how they do so. IOs strive to shield the politically sensitive evaluation process from undue political influences by establishing autonomous units. They build policy evaluation capacity by decentralizing the evaluation practices in the countries, typically in the guise of a local partnership with national institutions and professionals. They establish global evaluation networks that operate as epistemic communities. IOs also set evaluation criteria, they benchmark countries and other stakeholders against those criteria and disseminate the results. Such purportedly neutral techniques are de facto charged with policy purposes and represent crucial instruments of governance.

  • Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (Eds.). (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge University Press.

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transmittal new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42(2), 501–578.

  • Archer, C. (2015). International organizations (4th ed.). Routledge.

  • Alawattage, C., & Elshihry, M. (2017). The managerialism of neoliberal global governance: The case of the OECD. In A. Littoz-Monnet (Ed.), The politics of expertise in international organizations (pp. 167–186). Routledge.

  • Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2011). For lack of anything better? International organizations and global corporate codes. Public Administration, 89(2), 451–470.

  • Baccaro, L., & Mele, V. (2012). Pathology of path dependency? The ILO and the challenge of new governance. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65(2), 195–224.

  • Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.

  • Bauer, M. W., Knill, C., & Eckhard, S. (Eds.). (2016). International bureaucracy: Challenges and lessons for public administration research. Springer.

  • Béland, D., & Orenstein, M. A. (2013). International organizations as policy actors: An ideational approach. Global Social Policy, 13(2), 125–143.

  • Berten, J. (2017). Evaluation and simulation producing evidence in the global politics of social cash transfers. In A. Littoz-Monnet (Ed.), The politics of expertise in international organizations (pp. 148–166). Routledge.

  • Biermann, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2009). The role and relevance of international bureaucracies: Setting the stage. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies (pp. 1–14). MIT Press.

  • Brechin, S. R., & Ness, G. D. (2013). Looking back at the gap: International organizations as organizations twenty-five years later. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 4(1), 14–39.

  • Broome, A., Homolar, A., & Kranke, M. (2018). Bad science: International organizations and the indirect power of global benchmarking. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 514–539.

  • Coicaud, J. M. (2016). Evaluation, international organizations, and global policy: An introduction. Global Policy, 7(3), 420–425.

  • Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press.

  • Doshi, R., Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (2019). The power of ranking: The Ease of Doing Business indicator and global regulatory behavior. International Organization, 73(3), 611–643.

  • Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2015). Impact assessment in the European Union: Lessons from a research project. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 27–34.

  • Eckhard, S., & Ege, J. (2016). International bureaucracies and their influence on policy-making: A review of empirical evidence. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 960–978.

  • Eckhard, S., & Jankauskas, V. (2020). Explaining the political use of evaluation in international organizations. Policy Sciences, 53(4), 667–695.

  • Ellis, D. C. (2010). Theorizing international organizations: The organizational turn in international organization theory. Journal of International Organizations Studies, 1(1), 11–28.

  • EU Commission (2013). Strengthening the foundations of Smart Regulation—improving evaluation. COM(2013) 686.

  • Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. (2016). Impact evaluation in practice. World Bank.

  • Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. (2010). The politics of IO performance: A framework. The Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 227–248.

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination, 46(1), 1–35.

  • Hoerner, J., & Stephenson, P. (2012). Theoretical perspectives on approaches to policy evaluation in the EU: The case of cohesion policy. Public Administration, 90(3), 699–715.

  • Hurd, I. (2014). International organizations: Politics, law, practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  • International Labour Organization (ILO). (2017). Evaluation policy 2017.

  • Jankauskas, V., & Eckhard, S. (2019). International bureaucracies as strategic actors: How the Better Regulation reform strengthens the European Commission. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 60(4), 681–699.

  • Knill, C., & Bauer, M. W. (2016). Policy-making by international public administrations: Concepts, causes and consequences. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 949–959.

  • Lall, R. (2017). Beyond institutional design: Explaining the performance of international organizations. International Organization, 71(2), 245–280.

  • Littoz-Monnet, A. (Ed.). (2017). The politics of expertise in international organizations: How international bureaucracies produce and mobilize knowledge. Routledge.

  • Mathiason, J. (2007). Invisible governance: International secretariats in global politics. Kumarian Press.

  • Mayntz, R. (2017). From government to governance: Political steering in modern societies. In D. Scheer & F. Rubik (Eds), Governance of integrated product policy (pp. 18–25). Routledge.

  • McLaren, R. I. (2005). The United Nations as a membership organization. International Public Management, 8(1), 115–122.

  • Mastenbroek, E., Van Voorst, S., & Meuwese, A. (2016). Closing the regulatory cycle? A meta-evaluation of ex-post legislative evaluations by the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), 1329–1348.

  • Mele, V., Andersfuhren-Biget S., & Varone, F. (2016). Conflicts of interest in international organizations: Evidence from two United Nations humanitarian agencies. Public Administration, 94(2), 490–508.

  • Mele, V., & Cappellaro, G. (2018). Cross-level coordination among international organizations: Dilemmas and practices. Public Administration, 96(4), 736–752.

  • Mele, V., & Schepers, D. H. (2013). E pluribus unum? Legitimacy issues and multi-stakeholder codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 561–576.

  • Mergaert, L., & Minto, R. (2015). Ex ante and ex post evaluations: Two sides of the same coin? The case of gender mainstreaming in EU research policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 47–56.

  • Ness, G. D., & Brechin, S. R. (1988). Bridging the gap: International organizations as organizations. International Organization, 42(2), 245–273.

  • Oliver, A., & McDaid, D. (2002). Evidence-based health care: Benefits and barriers. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 183–190.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) (2002). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management.

  • Picciotto, R. (2007). The new environment for development evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 509–521.

  • Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press.

  • Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2019). Governance, politics and the state. Red Globe Press.

  • Power, M. (2000). The audit society—second thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 111–119.

  • Prügl, E., & Lustgarten, A. (2006). Mainstreaming gender in international organizations. In J. S. Jaquetter & G. Summerfield (Eds.), Women and gender equity in development theory and practice (pp. 53–70). Duke University Press.

  • Raimondo, E. (2018). The power and dysfunctions of evaluation systems in international organizations. Evaluation, 24(1), 26–41.

  • Radaelli, C. M. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 924–943.

  • Radaelli, C. M. (2008). Europeanization, policy learning, and new modes of governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(3), 239–254.

  • Rauken, T., Mydske, P. K., & Winsvold, M. (2015). Mainstreaming climate change adaptation at the local level. Local Environment, 20(4), 408–423.

  • Rugg, D. (2016). The role of evaluation at the UN and in the new Sustainable Development Goals: Towards the future we want. Global Policy, 7(3), 426–430.

  • Schoenefeld, J. J. (2021). The European Green Deal: What prospects for governing climate change with policy monitoring? Politics and Governance, 9(3), 370–379.

  • Smismans, S. (2015). Policy evaluation in the EU: The challenges of linking ex ante and ex post appraisal. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 6–26.

  • Smith, M. (2015). Evaluation and the salience of infringement data. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 90–100.

  • Stephenson, P. (2015). Reconciling audit and evaluation? The shift to performance and effectiveness at the European Court of Auditors. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(1), 79–89.

  • Stone, D. (2017). Partners to diplomacy: Transnational experts and knowledge transfer among global policy programs. In A. Littoz-Monnet (Ed.), The politics of expertise in international organizations (pp. 93–110). Routledge.

  • Stone, D., & Ladi, S. (2015). Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration, 93(4), 839–855.

  • Tiessen, R. (2007). Everywhere/nowhere: Gender mainstreaming in development agencies. Kumarian Press.

  • Trondal, J. (2016). Advances to the study of international public administration. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1097–1108.

  • Trondal, J., Marcussen, M., Larsson, T., & Veggeland, F. (2013). Unpacking international organisations: The dynamics of compound bureaucracies. Manchester University Press.

  • True, J. (2008). Gender mainstreaming and regional trade governance in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). In S. M. Rai & G. Waylen (Eds.), Global governance: Feminist perspectives (pp. 129–159). Palgrave Macmillan.

  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2017). Plan for global evaluations, 2018–2021.

  • United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). (2016). Norms and standards for evaluation.

  • United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). (2019). UNEG principles of working together (2019).

  • Volgy, T. J., Fausett, E., Grant, K. A., & Rodgers, S. (2008). Identifying formal intergovernmental organizations. Journal of Peace Research, 45(6), 837–850.

  • Weaver, C. (2010). The politics of performance evaluation: Independent evaluation at the International Monetary Fund. The Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 365–385.

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2018). Evaluation: Evaluation policy (2018).

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account