Aspects of the institutionalization of evaluation in Finland: Basic, agency, process and change

Abstract

This article draws on neo-institutional theoretical ideas to empirically examine the institutionalization of evaluation in the national government of Finland. The results indicate ambiguity in the basic institutionalization of Finnish evaluation, and imprecision in the agency of the actors that carry out or commission evaluations or utilize the evaluation results. Some Finnish institutional practices of evaluation enhance formal rationality such as efficiency and effectiveness, some support legitimation, and others do both in combination. The strength of coupling of evaluation to decision-making varies greatly. For future research, the article suggests studies on the institutionalization of evaluation in other countries. For evaluation practice, the results highlight the position of evaluation along the rationality-legitimation axis, and the variable linkages of evaluation to decision-making.

The power and dysfunctions of evaluation systems in international organizations

“…This overarching conception has been criticized by institutional theorists for ignoring relations of power and politics and for purporting that everything in organizational life is reducible to purpose and function. Institutionalists show that, independent of whether evaluation systems perform as intended, they have first and foremost a legitimizing role (Ahonen, 2015;Dahler-Larsen, 2012;Hojlund, 2014a). The institutional literature breaks down the optimistic lens of the accountability and learning model to highlight more "problematic aspects of evaluations as they unfold in organizations" (Dahler-Larsen, 2012: 56).…”

“…These authors recognize that organizations adapt to the practices that are legitimized by the authorizing environment in which they operate (Meyer and Rowan, 1977;Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). It follows that symbolic and political uses evaluation can be explained by the need for organizations to legitimize themselves to survive (Ahonen, 2015;Dahler-Larsen, 2012;Hojlund, 2014a). Several authors have also questioned the assumption that evaluation was a politically neutral instrument initiated by principals to steer implementing agents, instead claiming that evaluations can also steer principals and what is politically achievable (e.g., Bjørnholt and Larsen, 2014;Weiss, 1970Weiss, , 1973.…”

“…These authors recognize that organizations adapt to the practices that are legitimized by the authorizing environment in which they operate (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991). It follows that symbolic and political uses evaluation can be explained by the need for organizations to legitimize themselves to survive (Ahonen, 2015; Dahler-Larsen, 2012; Hojlund, 2014a).…”

The contents of the National Audit Office of Finland performance audits, 2001–2016

“…In Finland, performance auditing and evaluation have evolved in most respects separately and only in limited respects together (Ahonen, 2015a). The NAOF took its first steps towards performance auditing in the mid-1960s after financial and compliance auditing no longer sufficed alone (Ahonen, 1983).…”

Is auditing the new evaluation? Can it be? Should it be?

“…In Finland, a creative form blending auditing and evaluation has been developed, especially in the so-called steering audits [5]. While evaluation has to some extent been increasing with the development of a well-funded Strategic Research Council, there also has been a shift toward assessing efficiency and effectiveness in evaluation, something more akin to performance auditing (Ahonen, 2015). Also, shifts in technology within the Finnish National Audit Office appear to be moving toward more performance accounting (Ahonen, 2016).…”