Conference Agenda

This paper examines whether and to what extent core democratic characteristics are necessary for the institutionalisation of public policy evaluation. Policy evaluation research is still largely Western-centric (Jacob, 2023) and merely focused on liberal democracies (Stockmann et al., 2020). Even recent research (Varone et al., 2023) seems to implicitly take liberal democracy for granted when studying policy evaluation, leaving a research gap on how democratic characteristics are necessary or sufficient for the institutionalisation of policy evaluation. This gap becomes even more significant in the current era of post-truth, rising populism and democratic regression described by Bauer (2023), Sedelmeier (2023) and Hodson (2021). If policy evaluation depends on certain democratic features, such trends could lead to a decline in policy evaluation activities or even render evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world (Picciotto, 2019), where evaluation would be required more than ever (cf. Dorren & Wolf (2023); Han (2023); Bundi & Trein (2022); Schlaufer (2018); Zwaan et al. (2016); Moynihan (2008); Harty (2006) for examples of positive impact of policy evaluation on democracy). Such a decline could, in turn, reduce liberal democracy's arsenal to face the prevailing Trumpian era of denial of facts and tolerance of political lies.

Several factors, according to Jacob (2023), drive the institutionalisation of evaluation. These include several related to democracy, such as the capacity of the political system to use scientific evidence in a policy process, where public interventions can be examined in a transparent manner (including the implicit democratic features of freedom of speech and the rule of law) as well as the political will of decision-makers related to the need for accountability, a ‘hallmark of democratic governance’ (Han, 2023). Nevertheless, existing studies fall short in analysing in a comparative and systematic way how distinct features of democratic systems determine the institutionalisation of policy evaluation. This article analyses the extent to which the presence of these democratic features is necessary or sufficient to ensure the institutionalisation of policy evaluation.

The two volumes by Stockmann et al. on the institutionalisation of evaluation in the Americas (2022) and in Asia-Pacific (2023) provide case studies that offer a comprehensive overview of the institutionalisation of evaluation in 11 American and 11 Asian and Pacific countries. This article uses this data as an empirical source to assess the different levels of institutionalisation of policy evaluation across these continents. The institutionalisation of evaluation is defined here as the process by which evaluation systems are created, modified or even abolished (Jacob, 2023). An evaluation system consists of formal or informal rules or procedures and organisations that create both a demand and a supply side for policy evaluation (Jacob, 2023). Relying on the Democracy Index of the V-Dem Institute, a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) (Ragin, 2014) of these 22 countries reveals the necessity or sufficiency of democratic features for the institutionalisation of policy evaluation. The results shed light on the reciprocal dynamics of democracy and public policy evaluation.

In response to rising complexity and the demand for more integrated service delivery, governments increasingly deploy regional strategic planning as a policy instrument to steer inter-organizational collaboration. In the Flemish healthcare system, the development of a regional care strategic plan has become a regulatory prerequisite for accessing infrastructure funding, pushing hospital networks into structured joint planning processes.

While strategic planning is well-established within single organizations, its application in multi-actor public networks raises critical questions about its appropriateness, effectiveness, and institutional design. This study investigates how strategic planning unfolds within mandated hospital networks, and how the planning process interacts with collaborative dynamics and institutional steering.

Drawing on qualitative data from all thirteen Flemish hospital networks – including interviews with key stakeholders, policy officials, and document analysis of seven strategic plans – the paper examines the methods, governance mechanisms, and perceived outcomes of this first regional strategic planning cycle. Our findings show that while the process fostered improved collaboration, the actual strategic output remained limited. This appears to result from a combination of constrained strategic autonomy, compliance-driven templates, and underused mechanisms for stakeholder engagement.

A key insight from this study is that different planning processes and methods may be required depending on the intended purpose of such mandated strategic plan: whether it aims to drive regional transformation, implement government goals, or serve as a reporting tool. In a network context—where collaboration already demands significant resources—misaligned expectations and overly time-consuming processes can hinder rather than help. This paper contributes to the debate on anticipatory and adaptive policy design by highlighting the importance of aligning policy instruments with their strategic intent and institutional setting.

The paper is focused on the examination of the intersection of policy formulation, design and gender mainstreaming. It will emphasize one of the most overlooked aspects of policy design research: policy goals, which will form the cornerstone of the analysis. Building on the original theoretical and methodological framework established in prior research on policy goals (Petek et al., 2021; 2022), the paper delves into the integration of gender perspective within the theory of policy formulation and design. Gender mainstreaming, defined as a strategy or approach to policy-making, is still a variously understood ‘catch-all’ gender equality concept. This has significant implications for formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies but also its research. By merging the concepts of gender mainstreaming (more specifically the dimension of gender responsive content) and policy goals, this paper will offer an innovative analytical framework to examine how gender equality goals are articulated, prioritized, and operationalized.

Methodologically the paper will be developed through the coding of a diverse set of international policy documents, applying the coding scheme initially devised for Croatian public policies. It will adopt a qualitative content analysis approach to strategic policy documents. The comparative analysis will include a broad range of strategic documents from varied geographic and governance contexts, such as European Union strategies, United Nations frameworks, and national policies from South Africa, Canada, Japan, and other nations. To ensure diversity within the document sample, the paper will encompass a range of policy sectors, thereby broadening the analytical perspective and enriching the study's insights. The examination will focus on two key dimensions: the general dimensions of policy goals – thematic and technical – and the two types of gender mainstreaming – substantive and procedural (Šinko & Petek, 2022).