LIST OF PANELS

Currently a generalized international recognition exists on evaluation as a central and strategic tool in the public policies processes. In the literatura on this subject, there are two main traditions which are in permanent debate. On one side, focuses which meet a “decisionist” tradition, centered on the needs of actors conducting policies and programs, from a technical and economical improvement perspective, which often resorts to positivist base methods and econometric tools which contribute to efficiency and effectiveness (Schumann, 1967; Nioche, 1982). On the other side, focuses genuine of the “politicizing tradition”, centered on the political processes which evaluation implies, integrate social actors aiming at their incidence on decisions, through constructivist and interpretativist based methods and participative tools which contribute to democratization (Weiss, 1972; MacDonald, 1974). In this field, diverse assessment methods have appeared such as the “Democratic” (MacDonald 1993), “Collaborative” (Cousins ​​y Whitmore 1998) or “Deliberative Democratic” (House & Howe 1999), which  involve participative and deliberative spaces, beyond consulting. Despite of the fact that this focus has contributed to new forms of relationship between governors and governees through assessment, it often focuses on epistemologic and methodologic issues, without specifically approaching how it relates to the political processes which imply the assessed policies and programas.

Public policies represent the personification of the diverse actors’ ideas and cannot be understood if pulled apart off their interests, beliefs or values, carried by political coalitions from the most conservative to the most democratic, by administrators, administrative workers, technicians, and the citizenship itself (Muller and Surel, 1998).  Within this context, assessment relates in a multiple, complex and controverted form to all those actors, having to play not only a technical-economical role but also a polítical one, specially facing persons, groups and linked communities (Chelimsky, 2009). After this and within the context of the eastern democracies weakening, plus global crises such as the current pandemic, it is indispensable today that the assessment politicizing debate widens its horizons and directly dialogues with the policies processes, which is scarcely developed within the literature.

Trying to meet this need, we ask ourselves, how can the assessing and politicizing debate find points connecting policies processes, to help their improvement and democratization? How can assessment theories and methodologies feed innovative alternatives which, saving the participation of the diverse actors, facilitate their incidence on policies and programs, beyond assessments?

The objective of this panel is, therefore, to debate theoretical, methodologic and empiric contributions, which approach this more complex and deep vision of the policies assessment, from a politicizing-critical perspective, which questions the assumptions of this paradigm, by offering strengthening ways, although directly connected to the evaluated policies and programs, aiming at their democratic strengthening.

The assessment of public policies constitutes an indispensable environment to debate on public policies: it is grounded on the contribution to improve policies, and constitutes a fundamental input to feed back their decisions. Within the evaluative debate, the politicizing streams have demonstrated the power gaps which exist between social and state actors around policies and their assessments, and that not only does this contribute at a technical-economical level but also political, as a democraticizing tool. However, these focuses still do not deepen the fullness of their relationship to policies processes, which calls for new reflections and evidences, about their interconnections and how to facilitate the incidence of social actors in these processes.  

The objective of this panel is, therefore, to debate theoretical, methodologic and empiric contributions, which approach this more complex and deep vision of the policies assessment, from a politicizing-critical perspective, which questions the assumptions of this paradigm, by, offering strengthening ways, although directly connected to the evaluated policies for a better social incidence. It is expected, therefore, to rescue, question and debate the assessment contribution  to the technical, economical and political improvement of public.a policies, aiming at democratization.

It is expected that works will emphasize how to approach interests, beliefs, values and social practices, how it is weighed and incorporated into the evaluaciones, policies and programs. They will be able to refer to different instances of policies assessments (social, educative, health, economical, productive, cultural, territorial, institutional, or others), displayed in different territorial levels (macro, national or supranational range; meso, subnational, or micro, at local level). It is as well expected that works will contribute with different approaches, namely, multidimensional, multisectional, multidisciplinary and multiregional. Finally, works are also expected to rescue political positions and subjetive experiences, interests and interpretations of social actors, and how they are linked to the public policies through assessment.