LogoLogo
English
English
  • INSPIRED: Where policy meets dialogue
  • Who is this website for?
    • Civil society and domestic stakeholders
    • Development practitioners and EU representatives
    • Government officials
  • Guide
    • What is INSPIRED?
    • Why does INSPIRED make a difference?
      • A three-tier approach
    • How does INSPIRED work in practice?
      • A dialogue process in three phases
        • Collective Assessment Phase
          • The Participatory Policy Analysis (PPA)
        • Consensus Building Phase
          • The Roadmap for Reform
            • Balancing priorities and trade-offs
            • Considering the policy cycle
            • Structure
            • Types of Roadmaps for Reform
            • Unlocking the black box of “political will”
        • Monitoring and Donor Alignment Phase
          • Monitoring the recommendations of the Roadmap for Reforms
          • Ensuring the alignment of donor support to the priorities outlined in the Roadmap
          • The Policy Network Strategy
            • The Joint Analysis of the Policy Network
            • The network graph
            • The exercise of strategic foresight
      • Measuring progress: The Integrated Support Framework (ISF)
    • Who is involved?
      • The Donor(s)
        • Opening the space for dialogue‌
        • Building incentives through conditionality
        • Providing actors with access to decision-makers
        • Promoting the adoption of international standards
        • Bringing in experiences and good practices to feed deliberation
      • The Partner Government
        • Appointing the right person(s)
        • Providing access to government data
        • Coordinating the participation of the concerned public actors
        • Honouring the commitments collectively agreed through dialogue
        • Allocating resources for the implementation of the roadmap
      • The Dialogue Host
        • Convening the key stakeholders
        • Facilitating the dialogue sessions
        • Promoting knowledge-sharing among stakeholders
        • Coordinating the division of labour
        • Acting as the main hub of the resulting policy network
        • Reporting and keeping track of the collective progress
      • The Stakeholders
        • Civil Society Organisations
        • Political parties
        • Public administration
        • Parliaments
        • Media
        • Social agents
        • National Human Rights institutions
        • Academia
        • Democracy support organisations
    • What change can INSPIRED bring?
      • Types of change
      • Harvesting INSPIRED outcomes
  • The INSPIRED Toolkit
    • Results-orientation
    • Three categories
    • The tools
      • 1. Scoping the policy landscape
      • 2. Determining the stage of the policy cycle
      • 3. Stakeholder mapping
      • 4. Set-up and follow-up of indicators
      • 5. Deliberation around evaluative criteria
      • 6. Joint Research
      • 7. Workshops and focus groups
      • 8. Public events & campaigning
      • 9. Bilateral meetings
      • 10. Working groups
      • 11. High-level missions
      • 12. Workshops on multi-party dialogue
      • 13. Study visits
      • 14. Online consultations
      • 15. Grant schemes
      • 16. Training courses
      • 17. Coaching
      • 18. Network mapping
      • 19. International Peer to Peer support
  • Resources
    • Library
      • Policy dialogue: General
      • Policy analysis for dialogue facilitation
      • Dialogue stakeholders
      • Trust-building
      • Policy dialogue in thematic policies
      • EU democracy support
    • Track record
    • Contact us
  • LEGAL NOTICE
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo
On this page
  1. The INSPIRED Toolkit
  2. The tools

5. Deliberation around evaluative criteria

Type of tool: Trust building.

Purpose

To be clear on the values that will guide the assessment of the different policy alternatives and to allow unspoken assumptions, red lines and prejudices to emerge.

Rationale

Every decision is evaluated against a set of values that are all-too-often left untold and, in most cases, taken for granted. It is thus very important to make them explicit before embarking in the analysis of policy alternatives and, if possible, rank them according to the stakeholders’ preferences.

Value for money: how much will the proposed reform cost to the public treasury with regards to the quality/necessity of the services delivered?

Access and choice: Will the reform provide citizens’ with access to services or goods that they would otherwise not be able to access? To what extent will citizens’ choice be enlarged?

Fairness: Will the reform improve the situation of vulnerable groups or individuals?

Feasibility (administrative, political, social): Is the public sector capable of implementing the proposed policy or would it need major bureaucratic reforms? Is the reform palatable to politicians and their electorates? Are social structures ready to integrate the changes proposed in the policy reform?

Legality: Does de reform comply with international treaties and obligations?

Depending on the topic at stake, other evaluative criteria can be considered such as the environmental impact and sustainability or gender advancement, although the Dialogue Host will have to be selective when proposing new options, if only because the more variables analysed, the more complex that the final choice will become.

Outcomes

  • Prejudices and assumptions that could hamper the adoption of feasible policy solutions are debunked.

  • Problems framed by concrete evidence rather than preferences or biases, with a view to develop a shared understanding of the issues at stake.

  • Trade-offs of policy alternatives assessed along several evaluative criteria that are made explicit through the dialogue.

Previous4. Set-up and follow-up of indicatorsNext6. Joint Research

Last updated 1 year ago