Why organizations (do not) evaluate? Explaining evaluation activity through the lens of configurational comparative methods

Abstract

This article aims at explaining why some Flemish (Belgian) organizations evaluate policy, while others do not. The study relies on a unique combination of two configurational comparative methods: the Most Similar Different Outcome/Most Different Similar Outcome method and crisp set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. This combination of methods helps us unravel the combinations of conditions that promote or impede policy evaluation activity in a public administration that recently underwent major changes in line with New Public Management (NPM). The analysis reveals that the impact of NPM reforms on evaluation activity should not be overestimated. The results suggest that the important conditions that explain policy evaluation activity or inactivity are the anchorage of the evaluation function, the availability of skilled personnel to undertake evaluations, evaluation demand from organizational management, and the measurability of the outputs and outcomes of the organization’s activities.