The 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  19th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
Public Policy Analysis Development Issues
Author(s)  Iryna Kravchuk 
  Ukrainian Evaluation Association
Kyiv  Ukraine
 
 
 Title  Challenges of development of evaluation capacities in Slovak republic, Poland and Ukraine
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter 
Abstract  
  
This paper aims to elaborate recommendations for Ukraine on development of capacities to evaluate public policy on the basis of analysis of practical experience of selected CEE countries.

Development of legal and institutional framework to evaluate public policy is a good signal of sound transparency and accountability of the government. Formation of evaluation capacities in CEE countries was strongly influenced by accession process to the EU, requirement to monitor and evaluation pre-accession assistance, then – EU Structural Funds. But the level of maturity of evaluation systems strongly differs. Some countries learned lessons and exported evaluation practices outside structural funds (at least Slovenia). Others perceive evaluation as external formal obligation (Slovak Republic).

Ukraine doesn’t have such external pressure to develop evaluation capacities. But Ukraine also suffers from the fact that every new government starts from new page and doesn’t learn lessons and doesn’t make conclusions on the experience of predecessors. Some mistakes are often repeated be new teams in the power. To my opinion Ukraine requires clear legal and institutional setup for evaluation of public policy. It would increase learning capability of the government and guarantee better transparency and accountability.

Paper will address the following issues:

 general context of the development evaluation capacities in CEE countries;
 linkages of evaluation with strategic planning, law-making, budgeting, monitoring and audit;
 institutional structures to monitor EU pre-accession assistance and structural funds;
 lessons and challenges of development evaluation capacities in CEE countries;
 analysis of options for development evaluation capacities in Ukraine.

Paper will contain clear recommendations for development of evaluation capacities in Ukraine, institutional setup, better incorporation of evaluation into policy circle.