This document summarizes the evaluation system and policy review process in the Netherlands. It discusses the main evaluation instruments, including policy reviews conducted by line departments and spending reviews led by the Ministry of Finance. It notes several issues with the current approach, including a lack of data, quality concerns, asking the wrong questions at the wrong time, and lack of impact on actual policy changes. Finally, it considers some alternatives to improve policy reviews, such as starting the review process earlier, increasing cooperation with researchers to enhance data quality, and establishing more external influence to ensure a critical perspective.

1. Policy evaluation in
the Netherlands
Birgit ten Cate
|OECD, Paris 26-27 November 2015

2. 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. 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. 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. 5
Spending reviews: in general, we are satisfied

6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12
Alternatives
1) Start earlier and more penalty's
2) Central budget for research
3) External unit
4) ?

13. | 9 October 2015
The end
| 9 October 2015