ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how and why formal and informal organizational rules influence the application of long and short-term perspectives within evaluations that are commissioned or led by the Norwegian and United Kingdom’s international development agencies. We reflect on differences between the two agencies and provide a comparative analysis of their formal and informal rules. We define formal rules as regulations and required ways of working and informal rules as organizational norms and socially negotiated ways of working. These definitions are based on Douglass North’s framework and analysis of institutions. We subsequently apply a purposive sample to select four evaluations that have been commissioned by the international development agencies of Norway and the United Kingdom. Through these case studies we explore how and why long and short-term perspectives were selected and applied within evaluations. We compare their strengths and limitations based on their choice of time perspective and reflect on how this has influenced use of findings. The final section of the chapter considers how formal rules could be developed to support greater organizational reflection and learning from the long term.
