Institucionalizar la evaluación económica de políticas públicas: eficiencia y rentabilidad social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEl articulo se ocupa de la institucionalizacion de la evaluacion economica del gasto publico. Tras una presentacion sintetica de las tecnicas de evaluacion economica disponibles y de los principios que deben orientar el diseno de los sistemas de evaluacion, se revisan los sistemas institucionales de evaluacion del gasto publico en una serie de paises con mejores practicas: Alemania, Australia, Canada, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Suecia. A continuacion se ofrece un diagnostico de la situacion en Espana, partiendo de una revision de las tres instituciones principales con competencias legales sobre evaluacion en el nivel central: la Intervencion General de la Administra cion del Estado, el Tribunal de Cuentas y la Agencia Estatal de Evaluacion. El articulo finaliza esbozando las lineas basicas de una propuesta de reforma. EnglishThis article addresses the institutionalization of public spending evaluation. After a brief presentation of the available economic evaluation techniques and the principles that should guide the design of evaluation systems we review the institutional frameworks of public spending evaluation from several countries considered the best practices: Germany, Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Furthermore, the article provides a diagnosis of the current situation in Spain, based on a revision of the three main institutions with legal competences on evaluation at the central level: The Intervencion General de la Administacion del Estado (General State Comptroller), The Tribunal de Cuentas (Court of Auditors), and the Agencia Estatal de Evaluacion (State Agency of Evaluation). The article concludes suggesting basic lines for a reform proposal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".