The Role of Public Policy Evaluation in Strengthening Institutional Accountability (A Comparative Analysis of Legislative and Bureaucratic Levels in Iran)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. graduate in Public Policy, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran

10.22103/jogapp.2026.26414.1004

Abstract

Background and Objective: Public policy evaluation is a key instrument for enhancing institutional accountability and improving the quality of governance. However, within the governance system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this mechanism has not yet been systematically institutionalized in legislative and bureaucratic processes and remains largely confined to procedural oversight. This study aims to explain the role of public policy evaluation in strengthening institutional accountability at both the legislative and bureaucratic levels and to identify the institutional mechanisms influencing this process.

Method: This study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach with a qualitative orientation and employs document analysis as its primary research method. In this regard, upstream laws and regulations, official reports of oversight bodies, and legislative and policy research documents are examined and institutionally interpreted within a three-dimensional analytical framework comprising policy learning, stakeholder participation, and institutional transformation.

Findings: The findings indicate that the absence of legal requirements for ex-ante and ex-post evaluations, the dominance of procedural oversight over impact-oriented evaluation, weak information transparency, limited public access to evaluation results, and the lack of an independent evaluation body have disrupted the policy learning cycle, weakened stakeholder participation, and undermined the transformative function of policy evaluation. Ultimately, this situation has led to the formation of a self-reinforcing cycle of institutional inefficiency and the weakening of accountability at both the legislative and bureaucratic levels.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that institutionalizing policy evaluation in Iran requires the establishment of binding legal frameworks, strengthening the institutional independence of evaluation, enhancing analytical capacities, improving data transparency, and creating a structural linkage between evaluation results and decision-making processes. Fulfilling these requirements can transform policy evaluation from a formalistic tool into an institutional reform engine and a mechanism for strengthening accountability within Iran’s governance system.

Highlights

Extended Abstract:

Introduction

Public policy evaluation has increasingly been recognized as a fundamental component of good governance and evidence-based decision-making. By generating systematic feedback on policy design, implementation, and outcomes, evaluation enhances transparency, institutional accountability, and the overall quality of public decision-making. In many governance systems, particularly those influenced by New Public Management reforms, the institutionalization of evaluation mechanisms—such as Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and ex-post policy evaluation—has been considered a prerequisite for strengthening accountability and improving policy effectiveness.

Despite its theoretical and practical significance, public policy evaluation has not been systematically institutionalized within the governance system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Existing oversight mechanisms predominantly focus on procedural, financial, and administrative compliance rather than on performance, outcomes, and societal impacts. As a result, evaluation remains largely formalistic and fails to contribute meaningfully to policy learning, institutional reform, or accountability enhancement. This situation has limited the capacity of both legislative and bureaucratic institutions to assess policy effectiveness, revise ineffective policies, and respond to societal needs.

The main objective of this study is to examine how public policy evaluation can contribute to strengthening institutional accountability in Iran. Specifically, the article aims to analyze the role of evaluation in two key governance arenas—legislative decision-making and bureaucratic implementation—and to identify the institutional mechanisms through which evaluation can function as a driver of accountability and reform.

Theoretical Framework

The study draws on the institutional accountability literature, which conceptualizes accountability as a multidimensional construct encompassing bureaucratic, political, legal, and professional dimensions. Policy evaluation plays a mediating role among these forms of accountability by providing reliable evidence, enabling oversight, and facilitating corrective action.

Building on this literature, the research adopts a three-dimensional analytical framework consisting of policy learning, stakeholder participation, and institutional transformation. The policy learning dimension emphasizes the role of evaluation in generating feedback, preventing the repetition of policy failures, and improving decision-making quality. The participatory dimension highlights the importance of transparency, access to information, and stakeholder involvement in enhancing horizontal accountability and public trust. The institutional transformation dimension focuses on the conditions under which evaluation can function as an institutional reform engine, including independence, analytical capacity, and enforcement mechanisms.

Methodology

This research adopts a qualitative, descriptive–analytical approach and employs document analysis as its primary method. A wide range of documents was systematically examined, including upstream laws and regulations, parliamentary reports, official oversight documents, and policy research materials produced by legislative and executive institutions.

The collected documents were categorized according to governance level (legislative, bureaucratic, and oversight) and type of evaluative function (ex-ante evaluation, ex-post evaluation, and performance oversight). Using institutional interpretation and conceptual coding, the data were analyzed in relation to the three analytical dimensions of policy learning, stakeholder participation, and institutional transformation. A comparative analysis was then conducted to identify recurring patterns, institutional gaps, and systemic constraints affecting the use of policy evaluation in Iran.

Research Findings

The findings indicate that policy evaluation in Iran faces substantial institutional barriers across all three analytical dimensions. In terms of policy learning, the absence of mandatory ex-ante and ex-post evaluations has disrupted the policy learning cycle in both legislative and bureaucratic processes. Policy decisions are often made without systematic impact analysis, and existing analytical reports are rarely integrated into decision-making. This has resulted in what the literature describes as the “paradox of policy analysis,” whereby analytical outputs are produced but not utilized.

Regarding stakeholder participation, the study finds that participation mechanisms remain largely symbolic. Limited transparency, restricted public access to evaluative data, and the absence of institutionalized consultation procedures have weakened horizontal accountability and reduced opportunities for meaningful public engagement. These conditions have contributed to declining public trust and a widening gap between policy design and social realities.

In the dimension of institutional transformation, the findings reveal that the lack of an independent evaluation body, the dominance of procedural oversight, and the absence of enforcement mechanisms have prevented evaluation from functioning as a catalyst for reform. Evaluative activities are often conducted by the same institutions responsible for policy implementation, leading to conflicts of interest and undermining credibility. Consequently, policy evaluation has become trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of institutional inefficiency and institutional stickiness, in which ineffective policies persist without meaningful correction.

Conclusion

The study concludes that the failure of public policy evaluation in Iran is not the result of isolated shortcomings but rather the outcome of interacting institutional weaknesses across legislative, bureaucratic, and oversight systems. Without legal mandates, independent institutions, analytical capacity, transparency, and enforcement mechanisms, evaluation cannot fulfill its accountability-enhancing or reform-oriented functions.

To transform policy evaluation from a formalistic exercise into an institutional reform engine, the study highlights the need for comprehensive and multi-level reforms. These include mandating ex-ante and ex-post evaluations in legislative processes, establishing independent evaluation bodies, strengthening analytical capacities within public institutions, improving data transparency, and linking evaluation results to decision-making and budgetary processes. Such reforms can enable policy evaluation to play a meaningful role in strengthening institutional accountability and improving governance quality in Iran.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abbasi, B., & Kia, F. (2012). The principle of free public services in the light of laws and judicial practice in Iran. Constitutional Law Review. (In Persian)
Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
Alizadeh, M. (2017). The role of policy evaluation in improving decision-making processes in Iran. Public Policy Journal. (In Persian)
Amini, F. (2021). Analysis of educational policies in Iran. Mashhad: Jahad Daneshgahi Press. (In Persian)
Amini, M., Hosseini, A., & Jafari, S. (2022). Challenges and barriers of evaluation in Iranian public administration. Public Administration Quarterly. (In Persian)
Bahmani, M. R. (2017). Cultural policy-making in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Background, models, and challenges with emphasis on the concept of authority. Rahbord-e Farhangi (Cultural Strategy). (In Persian)
Barzegar, E., & Hosseinzadeh, S. (2017). A critique of state policy-making in Iran based on the Aslan analytical model (Case study: Justice Shares Distribution Plan). Government Studies Quarterly. (In Persian)
Bashiri, M. R. (2021). Factors affecting non-participation in social welfare programs in Iran. Social Policy Quarterly. (In Persian)
Bell, E., Christensen, J., & Hansen, K. J. (2022). Resistance or capitulation? How discrete emotions shape citizens’ interactions with the administrative state. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(8), 535–557.
Bogumil, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2018). Performance measurement and benchmarking as ‘reflexive institutions’ for local governments: Germany, Sweden and England compared. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(4), 543–562.
Bovens, M. (2007). "Analysing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework." European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
Brandsma, G. J., & Schillemans, T. (2013). The accountability cube: Measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 953–975.
Bundi, P. (2018). Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 130–138.
Colombo, C. (2018). Justifications and citizen competence in direct democracy: A multilevel analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 787–806.
Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44.
Danaeefard, H. (2023). Public Administration in Iran. Tehran: SAMT, Center for Humanities Research and Development. (In Persian)
De Boer, N. (2019). Street-level enforcement style: A multidimensional measurement instrument. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 380–391.
De Francesco, F. (2012). "Diffusion of regulatory impact analysis among OECD and EU member states." Comparative Political Studies, 45(10), 1277-1305.
Eberli, D. (2019). Die Nutzung von Evaluationen in den Schweizer Parlamenten. Seismo.
Emami Meybodi, R., & Ashtarian, K. (2015). Organizing the evaluation of public policies in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Danesh-e Siasi (Political Knowledge). (In Persian)
Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. (2017). Beyond profiling: The institutional sources of racial disparities in policing. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 168–178.
Eurofound. (2015). Access to social benefits: Reducing non-take-up. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Frey, K. (2012). Evidenzbasierte Politikformulierung in der Schweiz. Nomos.
Garritzmann, J. L. (2017). How much power do oppositions have? Comparing the opportunity structures of parliamentary oppositions in 21 democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(1), 1–30.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157.
Haghighi, M., Rezaei, F., & Ahmadi, N. (2022). Policy evaluation in the Islamic Consultative Assembly: Challenges and solutions. Public Policy Journal. (In Persian)
Han, Y. (2020). The impact of accountability deficit on agency performance: Performance-accountability regime. Public Management Review, 22(6), 927–948.
Han, Y., & Tang, S. Y. (2022). How quality reporting reduces accountability deficit and overload. Public Management Review, 24(12), 2079–2100.
Han, Y., & Tang, S. Y. (2022). How quality reporting reduces accountability deficit and overload. Public Management Review, 24(12), 2079–2100.
Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Institute.
Heinrich, C. J. (2012). How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the program assessment rating tool. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 123–134.
Herd, P., DeLeire, T., Harvey, H., & Moynihan, D. P. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state:The case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(S1), S69–S81.
Heydari, A. H., & Keshavarz-Tork, M. (2017). Evaluation and analysis of science and technology policy-making in Iran based on the foresight approach. National Research Institute for Science Policy, University of Tehran, School of Governance Library. (In Persian)
Heydari, S., Kazemi, A., & Sharifi, M. (2020). The role of policy evaluation in improving the legislative process in Iran. Majles Legal Studies. (In Persian)
Hood, C. (2010). Accountability and transparency: Siamese twins, matching parts, awkward couple? West European Politics, 33(5), 989–1009.
Hosseini, A. (2022). An assessment of transparency and accountability information systems in Iran. Governance and Sustainable Development. (In Persian)
Kazemi, H., Rezaei, A., & Ahmadi, M. (2022). The health system and executive challenges in Iran. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. (In Persian)
Kazemi, M. (2022). Structural barriers to the use of scientific studies in democratic processes in Iran. Political Research. (In Persian)
Kazemi, S., Ahmadi, R., & Mousavi, Z. (2019). The effects of quality management models on performance evaluation in Iranian public organizations. Public Management and Planning. (In Persian)
Khani, M. R. (2018). Challenges of accountability in Iranian public administration. Public Administration Quarterly. (In Persian)
Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
Kriesi, H. (2002). Individual opinion formation in a direct democratic campaign. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 171–185.
Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2019). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge University Press.
Majlis Research Center. (2023). Parliamentary oversight of budget allocation: Challenges and solutions. Report No. 1783. (In Persian)
May, P. J. (2007). Regulatory regimes and accountability. Regulation & Governance, 1(1), 8–26.
Meijer, A. J. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269.
Messerschmidt, K., & Oliver-Lalana, A. D. (2016). Rational lawmaking under review. Springer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). Recommendation of the Council on regulatory policy and governance. OECD Publishing.
Milic, T. (2015). “For they knew what they did”: What Swiss voters did (not) know about the mass immigration initiative. Swiss Political Science Review, 21(1), 48–62.
Mohammadi, A., Nouri, S., & Jafari, S. (2021). The role of official media in shaping public opinion and democracy in Iran. Communication Research. (In Persian)
Mohammadi, F., Karimi, N., & Tavassoli, V. (2021). The role of organizational evaluations in the effectiveness of public policies. Public Policy Quarterly. (In Persian)
Montgomery, J. (1989). Medicine, accountability, and professionalism. Journal of Law and Society, 16(3), 319–339.
Moon, M. J. (2020). Government openness and citizen participation: The moderating role of trust. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101–134.
Moseley, A., & Thomann, E. (2021). A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation. Policy & Politics, 49(1), 49–67.
Mousavi, A. (2019). Challenges of Iran’s welfare system: Examining benefit uptake rates. Social Welfare Studies. (In Persian)
Moynihan, D. P., Herd, P., & Rigby, E. (2016). Policymaking by other means: Do states use administrative barriers to limit access to Medicaid? Administration & Society, 48(4), 497–524.
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
Nikraftar, H. (2019). Evaluation systems of policy in Iran and developed countries. Strategic Policy Studies. (In Persian)
OECD. (2020). Government at a Glance 2020. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Phillips, S. D. (2011). "Policy analysis and the voluntary sector: Evolving policy styles and the implications for governance." Policy & Society, 30(2), 125-136.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis – New Public Management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Popelier, P. (2018). L’analyse d’impact de la réglementation: Une perspective juridique. Politiques et management public, 35(3–4), 107–129.
Radaelli, C. M. (2010). "Rationality, path dependency, and feedback: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe and the UK." Public Administration, 88(2), 331-350.
Rahmani, A. (2021). Bureaucratic challenges in Iran. Tehran: Ney Publishing. (In Persian)
Rahmani, A., Nouri, M., & Sadeghi, F. (2020). The role of transparency in improving evaluation processes in public administration. Administrative Sciences Research. (In Persian)
Rezaei, H., Mousavi, Z., & Karimi, N. (2020). Application of policy evaluations in macro-level educational and health decision-making in Iran. Public Administration. (In Persian)
Robson, J., & Schwartz, S. (2020). Who doesn’t file a tax return? A portrait of non-filers. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politiques, 46(3), 323–339.
Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240–253.
Saeedi, M., Ahmadi, R., & Hosseini, F. (2019). The impact of political awareness on voters’ decision-making in Iran. Political Science Quarterly. (In Persian)
Sager, F., & Winkler, A. (2021). Policy Evaluation: Concepts and Cases. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schillemans, T. (2011). Does horizontal accountability work? Evaluating potential remedies for the accountability deficit of agencies. Administration & Society, 43(4), 387–416.
Schlaufer, C. (2018a). The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 157–165.
Schlaufer, C., & Stucki, I. (2017). Die Nutzung wissenschaftlicher Evidenz in Abstimmungserläuterungen. LeGes: Gesetzgebung & Evaluation, 28(1), 69–80.
Schlaufer, C., Stucki, I., & Sager, F. (2016). The political use of evaluations in democratic discourse:Enrichment or exclusion? [Paper presentation]. European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) conference, Utrecht.
Shanazari, H., Shahramnia, A. M., Masoudnia, H., & Harsij, H. (2025). Policy evaluation analysis and its impact on good governance: A comparative study of Iran and Norway (doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. (In Persian)
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226–244.
Soleimani, R. (2021). Performance evaluation indicators of parliament members and their impact on parliamentary oversight. Public Management Research. (In Persian)
Souri, E. (2020). The impact of transparency on government accountability: The case of Iran. Governance and Public Policy Research. (In Persian)
Stucki, I. (2018). Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 148–156.
Stucki, I., & Schlaufer, C. (2017). Die Bedeutung von Evaluationen im direktdemokratischen Diskurs. In F. Sager, T. Widmer & A. Balthasar (Eds.) , Politikevaluation im politischen System der Schweiz (pp. 279–310). NZZ Libro.
Supreme Audit Court of Iran. (2023). Annual report on performance evaluation of executive bodies regarding the Transparency and Conflict of Interest Law. Tehran: Official Publications of the Supreme Audit Court. (In Persian)
Van Mechelen, N., & Janssens, J. (2017, May). Who is to blame? An overview of the factors contributing to the non-take-up of social rights (Working Paper No. 17/08). Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
Van Oorschot, W. (1991). "Non-take-up of social security benefits in Europe." Journal of European Social Policy, 1(1), 15-30.
Van Voorst, S., & Zwaan, P. (2019). The (non-)use of ex post legislative evaluations by the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(3), 366–385.
Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Routledge.
Winter, S. (2012). Implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.) , Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 253–264). Sage.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics