National Evaluation System; a Missing Link in the Legislation and Planning System of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Document Type : Research Article


Technology Studies Institute


The purpose of this article is to explain the proper position and the necessity of institutionalization of policy evaluation and to propose the development of a national evaluation system. In Iran’s legislative and policymaking processes, evaluation is not given enough attention and many approvals adopted by the Parliament and the other policymakers are not formulated and approved subject to the evaluation.
In this article, by studying official experiences of various countries through the study of published laws and official documents, the necessity of systemic evaluation of policies has been considered. Establishing a system of evaluation in the country has also been suggested. National Evaluation System should be established step by step with the development of evaluation readiness and culture. The system would require the policymakers to approve evaluable laws and approvals, the agencies to develop evaluable operational plans, to create evaluation databases and to publish all programs’ results and indicators.


1- امامی‌میبدی, راضیه. (۱۳۹۴). اصول عام ارزیابی نظام‌های ارزیابی سیاست. دوفصلنامه علمی پژوهشی دانش سیاسی, ۱۱(۱), ۴۵-۶۸.
2- امامی‌میبدی, راضیه, & اشتریان, کیومرث. (1391). طراحی نظام ارزیابی سیاست‌های عمومی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران. پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی, 7(2).
3- سلطانی, علی‌محمد‌. (1390). مدل ارزیابی سیاستگذاری فناوری نانو در ایران. (پایان‌نامه دکترای تخصصی), دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.  
4- غفاری, غلامرضا. (1388). منطق پژوهش تطبیقی. مجله مطالعات اجتماعی ایران, 3(4).
قانون برنامه و بودجه کشور,  (1351).
5- Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 3-17.
6- Arnold, E., & Balazs, K. (1998). Methods in the Evaluation of Publicly Funded Basic Research. A review for OECD. Can be found at:
7- BIS. (2010). Impact Assessment Toolkit; a guide to undertaking an impact assessment and completing the IA Template. Retrieved from London:
8- Blalock, Ann Bonar. (1999). Evaluation research and the performance management movement: from estrangement to useful integration? Evaluation, 5(2), 117-149.
9- bovens, mark, hart, paul ’t, & kuipers, sanneke. (2006). THE POLITICS OF POLICY EVALUATION The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy: Oxford University Press.
10- Brass, Clinton T. (2012). Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the new framework of products and processes. Retrieved from
11- Basic Guidelines for Implementing Policy Evaluation(Revised),  (2017).
12- CEE. (2018). Centre of Excellence for Evaluation (CEE).   Retrieved from
13- Clinton, Janet. (2014). The true impact of evaluation: Motivation for ECB. American journal of evaluation, 35(1), 120-127.
14- CONEVAL. (2018). The National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL).   Retrieved from
15- Cunion, K. M. (1995). UK Government Departments experience of RT&D programme evaluation and methodology. Scientometrics, 34(3), 363-374.
16- Curristine, Teresa. (2006). Performance information in the budget process. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 87-131.
17- Džinić, Jasmina. (2017). Effective Implementation of a Quality Management Policy in Public Administration: Experiences from Spain and Lessons for Croatia. Croatian & Comparative Public Administration, 17(4).
18- Evans, Mark. (2017). Policy transfer in global perspective: Routledge.
19- Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tübke, A., Zinöcker, K., Eth, S. A., et al. (2002). RTD evaluation toolbox. Retrieved from
20- Feinstein, Osvaldo, & Zapico-Goñi, Eduardo. (2010). Evaluation of government performance and public policies in Spain. Retrieved from
21- Government_of_Botswana. (2018). National AIDS Coordinating Agency (NACA).   Retrieved from
22- Government Policy Evaluations Act (Act No. 86 of 2001),  (2001).
24- Lengrand, L. (2006). Smart Innovation: A Practical Guide to Evaluating Innovation Programmes. Retrieved from
25- Lu, Xuejin, & Xie, Donhai. (2005). Evaluation in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3), 172-179.
26- McDavid, James C, Huse, Irene, Hawthorn, Laura RL, & Ingleson, Laura RL. (2012). Program evaluation and performance measurement: Sage.
27- Mertens, Donna M, & Wilson, Amy T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice: Guilford Publications.
28- MIC, Japan. (2018). Guidance on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.   Retrieved from
29- NABO. (2018). National Assembly Budget Office - Program Evaluation Bureau Retrieved from
30- Newcomer, Kathryn E, Hatry, Harry P, & Wholey, Joseph S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation Fourth Edition: John Wiley & Sons.
31- Radin, Beryl A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 111-135.
32- Rosenstein, Barbara. (2015). Status of National Evaluation Policies Global Mapping Report. Retrieved from
33- Runnels, Vivien, Andrew, Caroline, & Rae, Jennifer. (2017). Building Evaluation Culture and Capacity in a Community-Level Program: Lessons Learned from Evaluating Youth Futures. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(1).
34- Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public administration, 80(1), 1-22.
35- Sanderson, Ian. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6(4), 433-454.
36- Smith, G. (1999). Make Success Measurable! A Mindbook-Workbook for Setting Goals and Taking Action. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
37- Talbot, Colin. (2006). Performance regimes and institutional contexts: Comparing Japan, UK and USA. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Policy Evaluation, Tokyo.
38- US-Congress. (1993). Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
39- Van Dooren, Wouter, Bouckaert, Geert, & Halligan, John. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: Routledge.