Evaluability of the National Five-year Development Plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran; The Engine for The Implementation

Document Type : Review Article


Assistant Professor of Department of Innovation Policy and Future Studies, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran


The 5-year plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not evaluable. Despite varied reasons for the non-implementation of plans, the way they were formulated played a significant role. Evaluability in policy formulation requires regular structuring of policy levels, clear objectives, measurable indicators, evaluable tasks, clear responsibilities, and a chapter dedicated to evaluation rules. With the abovementioned features, it will be possible to analyze the reality of the plan before approval, monitor the progress of the plan clause-by-clause during execution, and conduct an evaluation of the plan’s implementation thoroughly. Based on the evaluation process, in addition to generating transparent data from the execution, the evaluation of the responsible institutions, as public demand, will also be possible, and it will create a set of data that will provide a good guide for the following 5-year plans. This article offers specific recommendations for the evaluable formulation of the plans based on the policy evaluation literature and the experiences of the previous plans.


  1. Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 1987, pp. 5-18).
  2. Bundi, P., & Trein, P. (2022). Evaluation use and learning in public policy. Policy Sciences, 55(2), 283-309.
  3. Casula, M., Rangarajan, N., & Shields, P. (2021). The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Quality & Quantity, 55(5), 1703-1725.
  4. Colebatch, H. (2009). Policy: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  5. Colebatch, H., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2010). Understanding policy work. Working for policy, 1, 11-25.
  6. DanaeeFard, H., & Torabzadeh Jahromi, M. S. (2019). Program Theory Evaluation Method in Evaluation of Social Programs {in Persian}. Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 2(1), 97-121. doi:10.22034/2019.90566
  7. Davies, R., & Payne, L. (2015). Evaluability Assessments: Reflections on a review of the literature. Evaluation, 21(2), 216-231.
  8. (2010). Impact assessment tookit. Retrieved from
  9. Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation (Vol. 5): John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Kheradmandnia, S. (2016). A review on the 1396 (2017) Budget Lawm Research Section {in Persian}. Iranian Parliament Research Center
  11. Lam, S., & Skinner, K. (2021). The Use of Evaluability Assessments in Improving Future Evaluations: A Scoping Review of 10 Years of Literature (2008–2018). American Journal of Evaluation, 42(4), 523-540.
  12. Leong, C., & Howlett, M. (2022). Policy learning, policy failure, and the mitigation of policy risks: Re-thinking the lessons of policy success and failure. Administration & Society, 54(7), 1379-1401.
  13. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2015). Using logic models. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 62).
  14. Nedaee, A. (2022). Learning methods in Public Policy Making {in Persian}. Journal of Political Strategy, 5(19), 135-160.
  15. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches {in Persian} (H. DanaeeFard & S. H. Kazemimm, Trans. 15): Pearson Education, Inc.
  16. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making. Public administration, 80(1), 1-22.
  17. Schmidt, R. E., Scanlon, J. W., & Bell, J. B. (1979). Evaluability assessment: Making public programs work better: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the Secretary….
  18. Smith, M. F. (1989). Evaluability assessment: A practical approach (Vol. 26): Springer Science & Business Media.
  19. Soltani, A. M. (2020). National Evaluation System; a Missing Link in the Legislation and Planning System of the Islamic Republic of Iran {in Persian}. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 137-154. doi:10.22059/jppolicy.2020.75197
  20. Taylor, J., Forsell, G., Perweiler, E., & Sienkiewicz, M. (2018). Longitudinal evaluation practices of health workforce development programs: An incremental approach to evaluability assessment.
  21. Vahid, M. (2020). Short time of public policy in Iran {in Persian}. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 75-88. doi:10.22059/jppolicy.2020.74956
  22. Varmazyar, H., & Tehrani, I. (2010). A General Evaluation of National Plans after Islamic Revolution {in Persian}. Iranian Parliament Research Center ExpertRreports, 2010(3), -.
  23. Wholey, J. S. (2015). Evaluability assessment. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 2, 33-62.
  24. Wollmann, H. (2017). Policy evaluation and evaluation research. In Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 419-428): Routledge