Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas

Norman Simón Rodríguez Cano

doi:10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382

Publicado

2018-07-01

Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas

Current Trends in Public Policy Evaluation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382

Palabras clave:

políticas públicas, evaluación, desarrollo, redes bayesianas, modelación computarizada, experimento aleatorizado (es)
Public policy, evaluation, development, bayesian networks, computer-based modelling, randomised experiment (en)

Descargas

PDF
XML

Autores/as

Norman Simón Rodríguez Cano Universidad Nacional de Colombia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3014-5422

Resumen (es)
Resumen (en)

La evaluación de políticas públicas es una disciplina que tiene como objeto el examen cualitativo y cuantitativo de las decisiones tomadas por los gobiernos para resolver problemáticas sociales. Metodológica y conceptualmente, se nutre de la economía, la ciencia política, la estadística y la computación, entre otras ciencias. En este artículo se contextualizan histórica y metodológicamentelas tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas, especialmente en la evaluación de diseño y la evaluación de impacto. También se reflexiona acerca de las potencialidades de la inteligencia artificial y el big data para esta disciplina.

Policy evaluation is a discipline dedicated to the qualitative and quantitative examination of the decisions made by governments to provide solutions for pressing social issues. Its methods and concepts come from a variety of fields, such as economics, political science, statistics and computer science, among others. This paper provides the historical and methodological background of the current trends in policy evaluation, focusing on formative evaluation and impact evaluation. It also reflects on the potential applications of artificial intelligence and big data in this discipline

Referencias

Basu, K. (2013). The Method of Randomization and the Role of Reasoned Intuition.The World Bank Group. Recuperado de https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367082

Bates, M. y Glennerster, R. (2017). The Generalizability Puzzle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 15(3). https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_generalizability_puzzle

Berry, D. (2006). Bayesian Clinical Trials. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 5, 27-36. https://www.stat.ubc.ca/~rollin/teach/bar/Berry2006NatureReviewsDD.pdf

Blumenstock, J., Cadamuro, G. y On, R. (2015). Predicting Poverty and Wealth from Mobile Phone Metadata. Science, 350(6264), 1073-1076. http://sampleu.ec.unipi.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Science-2015-Blumenstock-1073-6.pdf

Brodersen, K. (23 de septiembre de 2015). Causal Attribution in an Era of Big Time-Series Data. [Mensaje en un blog]. Recuperado de http://www.unofficialgoogledatascience.com/2015/09/causal-attribution-in-era-of-big-time.html

Brodersen, K., Galluser, F., Koehler, J., Remy, N. y Scott, S. (2015). Inferring Causal Impact Using Bayesian Structural Time-Series Models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(1), 247-274. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00356.pdf

Brodersen, K. y Hauser, A. (2017). An R Package for Causal Inference Using Bayesian Structural Time-Series Models. CRAN. Recuperado de https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CausalImpact/vignettes/CausalImpact.html

Cartwright, N. (2014). Evidence: For Policy And Wheresoever Rigor is a Must. Londres: The London School of Economics and Political Science.

Cartwright, N. y Munro, E. (2010). The Limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials in Predicting Effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(2), 260-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01382.x

Cencini, A. (2005). Macroeconomic Foundations of Macroeconomics. Nueva York: Routledge.

Donaldson, D. y Storeygard, A. (2016). The View From Above: Applications of Satellite Data in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(4), 171-198. http://dave-donaldson.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Donaldson_Storeygard_JEP.pdf

Duflo, E. y Banerjee, A. (2012). Repensar la pobreza: un giro radical en la lucha contra la desigualdad global. Madrid: Taurus.

Duflo, E. y Banerjee, A. (eds.). (2017). Handbook of Field Experiments, Volume 1. Amsterdan: Elsevier.

Fienberg, S. (2011). Subjective Bayesian Models and Methods in Public Policy and Government Settings. Statistical Science, 26(2), 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS331

Fisher, R. (1937). The Design of Experiments. Edimburgo: Oliver and Boyd.

Forrester, J. (1969). Urban Dynamics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Forrester, J. (1971). World Dynamics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and The last Man. Nueva York : The Free Press. Ghaffarzadegan, N., Lyneis, J. y Richardson, G. (2011). How Small System Dynamics Models Can Help the Public Policy Process. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.442

Giabbanelli, P. y Crutzen, R. (2017). Using Agent-Based Models to Develop Public Policy about Food Behaviours: Future Directions and Recommendations. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2017, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5742629

Ge, F., Wei, Z., Lu, Y., Tian, Y. y Li, L. (2012). Decentralized Coordination Of Autonomous Swarms Inspired by Chaotic Behavior of Ants. Nonlinear Dynamics, 70(1), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-012-0478-z

Gentile, J., Glazner, C. y Koehler, M. (2015). Simulation Models for Public Policy. En B. Furtado, P. Sakowski y M. Tóvolli (Eds.), Modeling Complex Systems For Public Policies (pp.73-83). Brasilia: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada – IPEA.

Gertler, P., Martínez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. y Vermeersch, C. (2017). La evaluación de impacto en la práctica: segunda edición. Washington: Banco Mundial – Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Glaeser, E., Duke, S., Luca, M. y Naik, N. (2015). Big Data and Big Cities: The Promises and Limitations of Improved Measures of Urban Life. National Bureau of Economic Research. Recuperado de http://www.nber.org/papers/w21778

Glennerster, R. (2017). When Do Innovation and Evidence Change Lives? [Mensaje en un blog]. Recuperado de http://runningres.com/blog/2017/11/9/when-do-innovation-and-evidence-change-lives

Haggenson, N. (1990). System Dynamics Combined with Monte Carlo Simulation. Proceeds of the 1990 System Dynamics conference. Recuperado de https://www.systemdynamics.org/assets/conferences/1990/proceed/pdfs/hagen468.pdf

Helbing, D. (Ed.). (2012). Agent-Based Modeling. Social Self-Organization. Understanding Complex Systems. Berlín: Springer.

Iacus, S., King, G. y Porro, G. (2012). Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013

Jean, N., Burke, M., Xie, M., Davis, M., Lobell, D. y Ermon, S. (2016). Combining Satellite Imagery and Machine Learning to Predict Poverty. Science, 353(6301), 790-794. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7894

Keane, M. y Wolpin, K. (1994). The Solution and Estimation of Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming Models by Simulation: Monte Carlo Evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 648-672.

Kennedy, W. G., Ihara, E. S., Tompkins, C. J., Inoue, M. y Wolf-Branigin, M. E. (2015). Computational Modeling of Caregiver Stress. Policy and Complex Systems, 2(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.18278/jpcs.2.1.5

King, G. y Nielsen, R. (2016). Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Gary King. Recuperado de https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/psnot.pdf

Lee, D. (2005). An Estimable Dynamic General Equilibrium Model of Work, Schooling, and Occupational Choice. International Economic Review, 46(1), 1-34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3663586?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Lee, J. y Chu, C. (2012). Bayesian Clinical Trials in Action. Statistics in Medicine, 31(25), 2955-2972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5404

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. y Behrens, W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Nueva York: Universe Books.

Michaloupoulos, C. (2012). A Bayesian Reanalysis of Results from the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) – Administration for Children and Families – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bayesian_reanalysis.pdf

Mullainathan, S. (2 de abril de 2016). Satellite Images Can Pinpoint Poverty Where Surveys Can’t. The New York Times. Recuperado de https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/upshot/satellite-images-can-pinpoint-poverty-where-surveys-cant.html

Muralidharan, O., Cardin, N., Phillips, T. y Najmi, A. (31 de enero de 2017). Causality in Machine Learning. [Mensaje en un blog]. Recuperado de http://www.unofficialgoogledatascience.com/2017/01/causality-in-machine-learning.html

Orloff, J. y Bloom, J. (2014). Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Inference. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Recuperado de https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/readings/MIT18_05S14_Reading20.pdf

Pearl, J. (2001). Causal Inference in Statistics: A Gentle Introduction. Submitted to ComputingScience and Statistics, Proceedings of Interface, 33(1), 1-20. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R289.pdf

Pearl, J. (2003). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Econometric Theory, 19(4), 675-685.

Pritchett, L. y Sandfur, J. (2013). Context Matters for Size: Why External Validity Claims and Development Practice Don’t Mix. Center for Global Development. Recuperado de https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/context-matters-for-size_1.pdf

Ramsey, F. (1928). A Mathematical Theory of Saving. The Economic Journal, 38(152), 543-559.

Rand, W. (2017). Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling. Complexity Explorer – Santa Fe Institute. Recuperado de https://abm.complexityexplorer.org

Ros, J. (2012). La Teoría General de Keynes y la macroeconomía moderna. Investigación económica, 71(279), 19-37.

Salazar, C. (2009). La evaluación y el análisis de políticas públicas. Ópera, 9, 23-51.

Schelling, T. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Nueva York: W.W Norton.

Simon, R. (1999). Bayesian Design and Analysis of Active Control Clinical Trials. Biometrics, 55(2), 484-487.

Spiegelhalter, D. y Freedman, L. (1994). Bayesian Approaches to Randomized Trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 157(3), 357-416.

Tang, D., Agarwal, A., O’Brien, D. y Meyer, M. (2010). Overlapping Experiment Infrastructure: More, Better, Faster Experimentation. Google. Recuperado de https://research.google.com/pubs/pub36500.html

Todd, P. y Wolpin, K. (2008). Ex-ante Evaluation of Social Programs. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 91/92, 263-291.

Wilensky, U. y Rand, W. (2015). An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Cómo citar

APA

Rodríguez Cano, N. S. (2018). Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas. Ensayos de Economía, 28(53), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382

ACM

[1]

Rodríguez Cano, N.S. 2018. Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas. Ensayos de Economía. 28, 53 (jul. 2018), 15–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382.

ACS

(1)

Rodríguez Cano, N. S. Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas. Ens. Econ. 2018, 28, 15-35.

ABNT

RODRÍGUEZ CANO, N. S. Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas. Ensayos de Economía, [S. l.], v. 28, n. 53, p. 15–35, 2018. DOI: 10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/75382. Acesso em: 25 mar. 2026.

Chicago

Rodríguez Cano, Norman Simón. 2018. «Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas». Ensayos De Economía 28 (53):15-35. https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382.

Harvard

Rodríguez Cano, N. S. (2018) «Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas», Ensayos de Economía, 28(53), pp. 15–35. doi: 10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382.

IEEE

[1]

N. S. Rodríguez Cano, «Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas», Ens. Econ., vol. 28, n.º 53, pp. 15–35, jul. 2018.

MLA

Rodríguez Cano, N. S. «Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas». Ensayos de Economía, vol. 28, n.º 53, julio de 2018, pp. 15-35, doi:10.15446/ede.v28n53.75382.

Turabian

Rodríguez Cano, Norman Simón. «Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas». Ensayos de Economía 28, no. 53 (julio 1, 2018): 15–35. Accedido marzo 25, 2026. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/75382.

Vancouver

1.

Rodríguez Cano NS. Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas. Ens. Econ. [Internet]. 1 de julio de 2018 [citado 25 de marzo de 2026];28(53):15-3. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/75382