earticle

영어

Self Evaluation System for Fiscal Program was adopted in 2004. In Korea, it has two steps; first step is by line ministries and second step is by Ministry of Strategy and finance. The former is called as self evaluation, while the latter is meta evaluation. So far, many researches were made to analyze the meaning of the final results. But the importance is needed to focus on the political meaning of the relationship between the line ministries and the MoSF, reflecting the top down decision making. In this line, this article was attempted to analyze the relationship between the self evaluation by the line ministries and the meta evaluation by the MoSF. First, the gap of the total point was getting closer. It means there was the learning effect. Second, the performance variable was the most important element contributing to the total gap. It complies that it is mostly important to control the performance variable for the effectiveness of budgetary programs. Third, planning variable showed a significant gap in the early period, but gradually the gap became smaller. In implies that the planning variable is needed to be converted to a consulting process. Fourth, implementation variable did not show a significant gap from the first. As the implementation variable was easy to be calculated, it was easy to make compromise. From the analysis, some policy implications were derived. First, meta evaluation should be changed from the dual evaluation to monitoring, including evaluation framework, methodology, periodical cycle. Second, planning is better for consulting process rather than the quantitative evaluation. Especially the performance indicators is supposed to be relevant for the prior mutual adjustment. Third, implementation is expected to be the quantitative variable, which is supposed to be easily admitted by the self evaluation. Fourth, performance variable should be put much emphasis and much weight is needed.