This paper examined four instruments for evaluating institutional aspects and policy aspects of publicfinancial management (PFM) in developing countries. The four were examined from the view point that the institutional aspects and policy aspects are better be analyzed separately when evaluating the PFM in developing countries. The four examined are (a) assessment tools of PFM performance, (b) Public Expenditure Review (PER) of the World Bank, (c) Aide Effectiveness Indicators (EI) of Paris Declaration, and (d) Country Policy and Institutional Assessments (CPIA) of the World Bank. The study has found (a) PFM tools in principle aim at reducing fiduciary risks and consequently focus on institutional and implementation assessment rather than policy assessment, (b) PER focuses on the evaluation of policy side of public expenditures but has been gradually moving towards the evaluation of institutional side of expenditures, (c) international aid agencies including the World Bank consider that PER is one of PFM assessment tools and that the PFM assessments must emphasize the evaluation of institution and implementation sides rather than policy sides, (d) the EI is working in the same fieldas PEFA performance measurement framework is, and hence is rather a tool for institutional assessment, and (e) CPIA has a high potentiality to function as an aggregated evaluation method of both policies and institutions.

View full abstract

This paper considered how to evaluate international cooperation on climate change. Firstly, an evaluation framework was established by the interdisciplinary review from the political, legal and economic dimensions of social science in environment policy. This is the framework that consisted of some elements about the international cooperation on climate change systematically. Secondly, this paper examined the effectiveness and subjects of the established evaluation framework. By using this framework, the case-study showed the evaluation result and policy subjects of Japan's international cooperation on climate change. The result of this case-study could verify the effectiveness of the framework, because international cooperation on climate change was able to be evaluated synthetically. One is to increase the number of case-study, and the other is to change the components of the framework. This paper could propose the qualitative framework as the evaluation method of international cooperation on climate change by materializing two methodological strong points of environmental policy, which are interdisciplinarity and synthesis.

View full abstract