Policy evaluation in the Netherlands -- Birgit ten Cate - Netherlands

Policy evaluation in the Netherlands

Birgit ten Cate

|OECD, Paris 26-27 November 2015

Evaluation system in the Netherlands

2

Studies and evaluations

I. Ex ante Evaluations

II. Ex post Evaluations

Policy Reviews

Impact Evaluations

Cost Benefit Analyses

Other Evaluations

III. Savings and reform options

Cost effectiveness studies

Spending Reviews

Comprehensive Spending Reviews

List savings options

Others: i.e. Task Force Controlling Health Care Costs

3

The two main evaluation instruments we are involved in

1) Policy review (30 p/y) • Responsibility of line department

• Initiated by line department • Scope = budget article • Fixed content

• What is role for government? • How is policy supposed to work? •How has it worked in terms of effectiveness and efficiency? • How could you cut 20%?

• Mainly backward-looking

4

The two main evaluation instruments we are involved in

2) Spending review (5 p/y)

• Responsibility of commission of senior civil servants

• Initiated bij ministry of Finance

• Political or budgetary problem

• Fixed procedure, content varies

• Mainly forward looking

5

Spending reviews: in general, we are satisfied

6

Project for improving policy reviews

Assignment:

- Analyze current institutional framework

- Come up with policy alternatives (with pro’s and cons)

Method:

- Expert interviews

- Literature

Purpose:

- Changes in institutional framework for policy reviews, to be implemented after new elections (2017)

7

(1): lack of data

• Many policy reviews conclude there is little evidence on policy effects

• Quite stable conclusion since 2006

• Policy review are supposed to use existing evidence

• Limited cooperation between line departments and science

8

(2): lack of quality

• Many reports fail to enable its readers to learn

• Why?

1. Awareness of potential political consequences

2. Skills of the civil servants involved

3. Lack of external pressure

9

(3) : Not the right questions at the right time

• MoF and parliament have tightened the screwes

• Both in terms of process and required content

• Results:

• Perception of doing homework for MoF

• Lack of SMART policy objectives

10

(4): lack of impact

• Very few policy reviews actually result in change of policy

• Little attention from parliament

• Disincentive for line ministries

• Dissatisfaction with the topics

11

What to do?

1. Start thinking earlier

2. More cooperation between government and scientific world to enhance quality of data

3. More external influences to ensure critical look

• No silver bullits, but trade off

12

Alternatives

1) Start earlier and more penalty's

2) Central budget for research

3) External unit

4) ?

| 9 October 2015

The end

| 9 October 2015