Background and Purpose
Under the banner of ‘public sector innovation,’ the public management system has been introduccd to enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the public sector. Public sector innovation has also raised the questions as to how different kinds of institutional structure might increase accountability. Institutionalization of evaluation has been a natural part of this process, and government programs with continuous expenditure have increased the need for monitoring at various organizational levels, in relation to both financial information and activities performed. As a result, program evaluation, the most sophisticated form of evaluation, is now being introduced in Korea as a way of promoting accountability and efficiency in public sector governance.

Naturally, designing an evaluation-related institution which is new to the Korean public sector involves applying models of other countries to Korean setting, and so, learning from the experience of developed countries has gained enormous importance in this field lately.

In the basic setting for program evaluation, the responsibility for the design, programming, and execution of evaluation is with line ministries, whereas the budget ministry mainly has ex post tools for intervening in this process. In spite of decentralized responsibility for carrying out evaluations, provisions are made to enhance the links between evaluation and budgetary decision making. The core
idea is to establish specific requirements concerning evaluation information that must be available as accompanying material to any proposal with budgetary consequences when it is submitted for decision-making. However, this basic setting is realized in various forms, and the global scene for evaluation has changed considerably especially in the past decade. Some of those countries where evaluation took off twenty or thirty years ago are still showing growth and some are not.

These circumstances obviously make comparisons necessary to see what works and what does not work in other countries. As a late starter, we are in strong need to find explanatory factors for the development of evaluation elsewhere.

Main Results
This report contains 5 country-specific chapters in which evaluation systems are described, and a concluding chapter comparing Korea and other countries. The main interest is to find out what forces are
affecting the contour of evaluation in different national contexts and what consequences these forces will have on the diffusion of evaluation. A historical overview of supply and demand in relation to evaluation and shifts in institutional settings, descriptions of evaluation in the executive/legislative branch of government, and a comparison with Korean situation are provided in this report.

Conclusion
This report shows that the historical and institutional preconditions for evaluation are, in fact, very different in the countries involved.

As for the purpose of institutional evaluation, evaluation activities in the 1960s and 1970s were aimed at improving various social programs, while in many countries an explicitly stated purpose for evaluation in the 1980s and 1990s was to reduce governmental expenditures by cutting programs.The situation in Korea is in line with the later development in evaluation activities. Various types of evaluation are being sequentially introduced for increasing efficiency of public management.

The fact that evaluation is now embodied in what can be the “public management package” also means that the budget process in many countries has now become an important channel for evaluation information. In the same vein, finance ministry has become the prime movers for evaluation activities in Korea. This, in turn, influences the kind of information being demanded from evaluation information that can be used for resource allocation in particular. For more efficient resource allocation, it is needed to improve the evaluation process, including generating information in each stage of evaluation, feedback system of generated information, and building up of evaluation infrastructure.

제1장 사례연구의 관점

제2장 호주의 평가제도
　제1절 평가제도의 도입
　제2절 예산과정과 평가의 연계
　제3절 제도 정착과정의 주체
　제4절 평가제도의 전환
　제5절 시사점

제3장 스웨덴의 평가제도
　제1절 평가제도의 도입
　제2절 예산과정과 평가의 연계
　제3절 평가의 주체
　제4절 시사점

제4장 미국의 평가제도
　제1절 평가의 도입
　제2절 제도정착과정에서의 주체
　제3절 평가기능의 약화
　제4절 예산과정과의 연계
　제5절 시사점

제5장 캐나다의 평가제도
　제1절 평가정책의 도입 및 변화
　제2절 평가의 주체
　제3절 결과 지향적 관리와 평가
　제4절 평가의 실제
　제5절 예산과정과의 연계
　제6절 시사점

제6장 유럽연합(EU)의 평가제도
　제1절 유럽연합 초기의 평가
　제2절 평가제도의 발전
　제3절 예산과 평가결과의 연계
　제4절 1990년대 이후의 평가 발전
　제5절 시사점

제7장 우리나라의 평가제도 및 타국과의 비교
　제1절 평가체계 도입 이전의 평가