The aim of this special issue is to invite scholars in public administration to address issues of power in relation to evaluation practices in the public sector. Power is one of those big, difficult, and inherently nebulous concepts that both scholars and practitioners appear to consciously or unconsciously avoid. Our ambition in this introduction is not to present a comprehensive conceptual review of power, let alone to present the many different aspects of evaluation. Rather, this is a humble attempt to foster a more explicit discussion of the relationship between power and evaluation. The aim of this introduction is, firstly, to introduce a few basic distinctions and conceptualisations of the relationship between power and evaluation. Secondly, we would like to highlight three themes where power may be an especially fruitful lens when analysing, or just trying to make sense of, evaluation procedures. These are themes found in evaluation research, but where power is not always acknowledged or accounted for. We call them (1) Evaluation and instrumental power, (2) Evaluation and contextual power, and (3) Evaluation and performative power.

During the last couple of decades, we have witnessed a proliferation of the project as an organizational solution in sectors as diverse as IT, housing, social services, education and culture. Despite a growing interest in the phenomenon, we know surprisingly little of how processes of public sector projectification unfold in practice, especially at local government level. This article uses an institutional logic perspective to illustrate and argue that public sector projectification can be understood and conceptualized as the enactment of multiple, co-existing institutional logics, but where one particular logic is of growing importance – the project logic. It is argued that even though the project form is often perceived as more flexible than that of the bureaucracy, the practical outcome seldom represents a radical break with traditional, bureaucratic management models. Rather, it appears to aid a rediscovery and reuse of central bureaucratic practices and procedures such as reporting, documentation and standardization.

While previous research on projectification tends to focus on why processes of projectification emerge and in what contexts, this chapter use the example of EU project funding in Swedish local government to analyse and understand how processes of projectification unfold in terms of transformation and adaptation. Key agents in processes of projectification are located and how these agents work and with what techniques and tools are described and analysed. It is argued that processes of projectification unfold through the workings of agents sharing, at the same time as constructing, a project funding market in which they mediate between EU funding and possible EU projects. The EU project funding market is held together by mediating agents and their application of policy techniques and tools of information, roadmaps/policies, collaborations/networks, courses, and consultation. Processes of projectification are as such triggered by project-supporting incentives created top-down at the same time as several bottom-up initiatives trigger the same phenomenon. As a result, projectification is understood not only as an increasing use of EU projects but as processes of transformation and adaptation where agents create project strategies, project models, engage in project networks and train staff in project management and project methodology to handle forthcoming projects.

Forskning om europeisering har visat att medlemsländerna påverkas av EU:s lagar och regler. Forskningen säger dock inte lika mycket om hur kommunerna påverkas av EU:s finansiering, organisering och styrning. Den aspekten står i fokus för den här analysen, närmare bestämt konsekvenserna av kommunernas EU-projektarbete. Kommunernas engagemang i EU-projekt har ökat med tiden. För kommunerna innebär EU-projekten inte bara en finansieringskälla utan även en chans att utveckla de kommunala organisationerna. För EU är projektfinansiering ett sätt att styra medlemsstaternas arbete med bland annat tillväxt och sysselsättning, men också en uppmuntran till kommunala aktörer att delta i EU-arbetet. Enligt tidigare utvärderingar och empirisk forskning ger EU-projekten inte upphov till långsiktiga och substantiella effekter på organisatorisk eller strukturell nivå. Men under ytan pågår organisatoriska (och kanske även strukturella) förändringar. Projektorganisationer är inte enbart bärare av resultat utan producerar eller orsakar också egna effekter, oavsett projektens syfte och mål. För att projekt ska få hållbara effekter är det enligt författaren viktigt att knyta dem närmare till den ordinarie verksamheten. Ökad medvetenhet om projektlogikens för- och nackdelar gör det lättare att fokusera på det som kommunen faktiskt vill lägga resurser på, enligt demokratiskt fattade beslut.

This chapter introduces the phenomenon of public sector projectification, critically assessing the nature and consequences of this phenomenon to make clear the importance of studying this development in detail. It describes the specific context of the public sector in relation to processes of projectification, the relation between projectification and politics in state-owned and state-managed sectors and considers the embedded tensions between permanent organisations and temporary organising. Projectification has emerged in close inter-relation with broader discourses of managerialism in public services, often collectively described as “new public management” (NPM). NPM is a broad and contested term covering a substantial and often poorly defined range of activities and processes. Projects are thus a means for government to delegate responsibility for policy outcomes, sharing responsibilities between central and local levels, while still remaining in control in terms of programme development, funding, and evaluation. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

The local governments of EU member countries are attracted to the possibility of receiving EU funding. However, as the governance structures of EU funds are complex and dynamic, municipalities are increasingly drawing on the knowledge and resources of ‘EU experts’ who mediate and provide project support. This article contributes to our understanding of how EU cohesion policy is translated through EU projects, with a specific focus on the processes of preparing and applying for project funding. Drawing on education policy, this study analyses a tool which has been developed to facilitate and increase the number of EU projects in the Swedish region of Scania. The analysis shows that regional mediation – and the ambition to reframe local policies into EU projects – entails substantive as well as organizational changes in two aspects. First, the policy content shifts from the realm of education policy to the realms of collaborative development policy, social cohesion and innovation, and second, the translation entails an organizational shift from permanent public education administration to temporary project organizations. These processes are conceptualized as the re-compartmentalization of local policies.