go beyond the findings, in in political considerations, e.g., implications are carefully and effect expressing personal income distribution, when this fully drawn out. views or political opinions?) is not at all the subject of the analysis. Personal opinions are expressed. B.2 If the conclusions call for Cost and administrative The author provides defensible action through government considerations are not covered. estimates of the cost involved programs, is the cost and realistically discusses the realistically estimated? Is the administrative issues involved. administrative feasibility and (The extent of detail necessary complexity of the program will vary with the objective of considered? the study.) B.3 Do the authors consider The authors focus on a single Relevant options are presented various options for approach with little or no and criteria by which they should addressing the issue and the justification for its selection. be judged are explicitly stated. merits of each, or focus Other options are not even The criteria are applied to the exclusively on a single acknowledged to exist. options and the superior one approach? selected for recommendation. B.4 Are the authors careful not to The proposals are far too broad, The recommendations are make proposals that go extensive or otherwise beyond consistent with the specific beyond the study’s findings? what the study’s results can findings of the If more defend. general statements are made, they are fully labeled as not being based specifically on the study’s findings. B.5 do the There is no treatment of these It is either not appropriate to Where appropriate, authors suggest what topics. make such suggestions or the additional data could be authors lay out how the data collected and/or analysis deficiencies they encountered undertaken to better answer could be remedied in the future. the question posed or to answer additional questions the study raised?
go beyond the findings, in effect expressing personal views or political opinions?) in political considerations, e.g., income distribution, when this is not at all the subject of the analysis. Personal opinions are expressed. implications are carefully and fully drawn out. B.2 If the conclusions call for action through government programs, is the cost realistically estimated? Is the administrative feasibility and complexity of the program considered? Cost and administrative considerations are not covered. The author provides defensible estimates of the cost involved and realistically discusses the administrative issues involved. (The extent of detail necessary will vary with the objective of the study.) B.3 Do the authors consider various options for addressing the issue and the merits of each, or focus exclusively on a single approach? The authors focus on a single approach with little or no justification for its selection. Other options are not even acknowledged to exist. Relevant options are presented and criteria by which they should be judged are explicitly stated. The criteria are applied to the options and the superior one selected for recommendation. B.4 Are the authors careful not to make proposals that go beyond the study’s findings? The proposals are far too broad, extensive or otherwise beyond what the study’s results can defend. The recommendations are consistent with the specific findings of the If more general statements are made, they are fully labeled as not being based specifically on the study’s findings. B.5 Where appropriate, do the authors suggest what additional data could be collected and/or analysis undertaken to better answer the question posed or to answer additional questions the study raised? There is no treatment of these topics. It is either not appropriate to make such suggestions or the authors lay out how the data deficiencies they encountered could be remedied in the future.
ITTM_Annex-6-1.docx