Klitgaard’s Policy Analysis and Evaluation Version 2.0
Robert Klitgaard (reference below, video on right), in a public lecture at Oxford’s Blavatnik School on building integrity, proposes an updated version of policy analysis and evaluation, and its implications for the role of universities.
Moving from Version 1.0 to Version 2.0
Klitgaard suggests (see lecture at minute 35:13) that it is time to move from version 1.0 to 2.0 of the way we think about policy analysis and evaluation.
- The decisionmaker
- The choice
- Clear, agreed-upon objectives
- Well-defined alternatives
- Good data and accepted models
- Needing the evidence
- In the report
- Many decisionmakers and stakeholders
- Many choices by different people
- Unclear objectives
- Unclear alternatives
- Incomplete data and imperfect models
- Needing data, examples, and frameworks that will kindle creative problem-solving and stronger relationships
- In the convening and the networking
Five headings in the remake of policy analysis and evaluation
In a short paper entitled Policy Analysis and Evaluation in a Fact-Free World (reference below), Klitgaard writes (p. 2):
“We need a radical remake of policy analysis and evaluation.
“First: let’s question the problems or so‐called problems. Take poverty. What is it, how is it measured, how much of “it” exists where? And to whom, how much, and by what criteria are various kinds and degrees of poverty considered “problems”?
“Second: let’s ask what can be done with what results, by whom, at what cost, and with what unintended consequences.
“Third: let’s look at success stories and see what can be learned from them about defining the problems and solutions and about evoking effective responses from government, business, and civil society.
“Fourth: let’s open up the analytical process, from start to finish. Defining “the problems.” Getting the data. Analyzing the data. Interpreting the results. Moving from results on paper to actions on the ground. Evaluating what is done and not done, and the various consequences. And regrouping to ask, so what?
“Finally, the goal. Rather than trying to derive an answer or dictate a policy, analysis can enhance creativity. We need to redirect ourselves as scholars and analysts, and our institutions, toward that creative end. Our purpose and our behavior have to be at once humbler and bolder. Humble, because we agree that our data, models, and examples are imperfect. Bold, because these data, models, and examples can help others reframe the problems they face, ponder new alternatives, and create practical ways to move forward.”
Implications for universities
Klitgaard suggests (see lecture at minute 38:46) that universities can be most effective in Policy Analysis and Evaluation Version 2.0 if they:
- Expand the mission: Convene on big issues
- What does this require:
- Faculty and students researching big issues
- Credibility (e.g., objective, high quality)
- Facilitation skills
- Venues (including virtual)
He suggests (see lecture at minute 35:00) that:
- As policy researchers we can provide
- Data to help “locate” the problem and setting
- Case studies of success
- …at convenings
- …where multiple actors can creatively address important issues
- …and then follow up (catalyzing flows of information, strengthening networks)
Topic, subject and Atlas course
Robert Klitgaard (2017), Building Integrity – Learning from Success, public lecture at https://building-integrity.org/2017/06/12/building-integrity-learning-from-success-professor-robert-kiltgaard/, accessed 27 September 2017.
Robert Klitgaard (2017), Policy Analysis and Evaluation in a Fact-Free World, at https://scholar.cgu.edu/robert-klitgaard/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2017/02/Analysis-in-a-Fact-Free-World.pdf, accessed 27 September 2017.
Page created by: Ian Clark, last modified on 27 September 2017.
Image: Robert Klitgaard (2017), Building Integrity – Learning from Success, public lecture at https://building-integrity.org/2017/06/12/building-integrity-learning-from-success-professor-robert-kiltgaard/, accessed 27 September 2017.