The Theory, Type, and Institution of Evaluation in the Public Sector

Abstract

In recent years, public sector evaluation in Japan has made a steady progress, and its influence has expanded to non-profit organizations. However, theories of evaluation do not have an independent and distinct discipline; rather they are influenced by practices. Three purposes of this article are: (1) to streamline intricate various evaluation theories, to reconstruct types of evaluation, and relate them with institutional developments; (2) to give a sketch of positioning these developments in public sector reform; and (3) to clarify regimes of evaluation where a regime is defined as ‘method or system of government.’

Evaluation is comprehensive enough to be called a ‘semantic magnet’, and there are three theoretical regimes: evaluation (in narrower sense), measurement, and analysis. These three regimes have a common factor in contributing to more scientific and rational decision-making, and give impact on each other, but have distinctive historical developments. Audit and inspection are means to secure accountability in government, and have been influenced by these three regimes in recent times. In particular, the measurement regime, gaining leverage with its affinity for new public management, has emerged by immersing with generic management techniques, and expanded to influence the management control means of audit system. The current challenge is how to incorporate a democratic factor into whichever type of regime of evaluation to choose.