Comments and Proposals Concerning Chianca’s “The OECD/DAC Criteria for International Development Evaluations: An Assessment and Ideas for Improvement”

Abstract

Having been involved in the discussions preceding the establishment of the OECD/DAC criteria as member of the DAC Working Party on International Development Cooperation Evaluation (IDCE) representing the European Commission, it is understandable that I have read Chianca’s (2008) article with exceptional interest. There is hardly anything in this article that I would disagree with, except a few minor aspects that I will mention in due course. I also fully support the idea of taking a critical look at the DAC criteria and at IDCE approaches in general, a critical review that should always continue as an ongoing process. “If followed,” Chianca says the changes he proposes “could contribute for increasing the quality of evaluation for the purposes of . . . decision options” (p. 1). I will try to formulate some proposals with a view to bringing that “If followed” premise a bit closer to reality. My comments have been written with the contents of my article, “Planning and Evaluation, Two Sides of the Same Coin,” in mind and should be understood in that context. (Eggers, 2006).

Keywords

• commentary