IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v9y2010i1p15-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evaluation of Rural Development Policy in the EU L’évaluation de la politique de développement rural dans l’Union européenne Die Evaluation der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums in der EU

Author

Listed:
  • Dylan Bradley
  • Janet Dwyer
  • Berkeley Hill

Abstract

The Evaluation of Rural Development Policy in the EU Evaluation is firmly established as part of rural development policymaking in the EU. A requirement to evaluate is set out in the Rural Development Regulation, the legal basis for spending EU funds on agreed aspects of rural development, which also stipulates the process to be used. Member States are responsible for ensuring that independent ex ante, mid‐term and ex post evaluations are carried out for each seven‐year Rural Development Programme (RDP), but with inputs from the Commission, notably on common evaluation questions to be used in all countries. Such a heavily structured system has both advantages and disadvantages. Consistency of approach enables synthesis of evaluation results at the EU level and provides a degree of quality control. However, it constrains the ability of evaluators to pursue issues which may be of importance locally or to other stakeholders. Technical details, especially the timing of evaluation stages, also diminish the ability to learn from past programmes. Data availability remains an important issue. Nevertheless, our experience is that it is both possible and important to learn from evaluating RDPs, not only to measure their apparent achievements, but also to enhance the quality of the policy process, at all levels. Dans l’Union européenne, l’évaluation fait partie intégrante de l’élaboration de la politique de développement rural. Une disposition exigeant cette évaluation est inscrite dans le règlement sur le développement rural, législation sur laquelle se fonde le versement des fonds communautaires correspondant à des aspects convenus du développement rural. Le règlement stipule également le processus à emprunter pour mener cette évaluation. Il est de la responsabilité des États membres de garantir la mise en œuvre d’évaluations indépendantes a priori, à mi‐mandat et a posteriori pour chaque Programme de développement rural septennal, sur la base de contributions de la Commission, notamment les questions communes d’évaluation que chaque pays doit utiliser. Ce système fortement structuré a des avantages et des désavantages. La cohérence de l’approche permet de synthétiser les résultats de l’évaluation au niveau de l’Union européenne et d’obtenir un certain niveau de contrôle de qualité. Cependant, elle contraint la capacité des évaluateurs à aller plus loin sur certaines questions qui peuvent être importantes au niveau local ou pour d’autres parties prenantes. Les détails techniques, en particulier le calendrier des différentes étapes de l’évaluation, réduisent aussi la possibilité de tirer des leçons des programmes passés. La disponibilité des données reste une question importante. Pourtant, notre expérience nous permet de conclure qu’il est à la fois possible et important de tirer des leçons de l’évaluation des PDR, non seulement pour mesurer leurs résultats apparents mais aussi pour accroître la qualité du processus d’élaboration des politiques à tous les stades. Die Evaluation ist mittlerweile zu einem festen Bestandteil in der Gestaltung der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums in der EU geworden. Die Verordnung über die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums, welche die Rechtsgrundlage der EU‐Ausgaben für die vereinbarten Aspekte der ländlichen Entwicklung darstellt, schreibt eine Evaluation zwingend vor und legt zudem die zu verwendende Methode fest. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind dafür zuständig, für jedes Programm zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums mit einem Förderzeitraum von sieben Jahren ex ante, ex post sowie in der Mitte der Laufzeit unabhängige Evaluationen durchzuführen. Hierbei ist die Kommission insbesondere bei der Erstellung eines einheitlichen Evaluationsfragenkatalogs für alle Länder beteiligt. Ein solches stark strukturiertes System hat sowohl Vorteile als auch Nachteile. Dank der vereinheitlichten Herangehensweise können die Evaluationsergebnisse auf EU‐Ebene übertragen werden und ein gewisses Maß an Qualitätskontrolle sicherstellen. Die Evaluatoren werden jedoch auch daran gehindert, Themen aufzugreifen, die möglicherweise von regionalem Interesse oder für andere Akteure wichtig sind. Die technischen Einzelheiten – insbesondere die zeitliche Planung der Evaluationsphasen – schränken zusätzlich die Möglichkeit ein, die Erfahrungen aus bereits abgeschlossenen Programmen zu nutzen. Die Datenverfügbarkeit ist nach wie vor ein großes Thema. Trotz allem ist es unserer Erfahrung nach sowohl möglich als auch wichtig, aus der Evaluation der Politikmaßnahmen zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums zu lernen – nicht nur, um ihre messbaren Leistungen zu erfassen, sondern auch, um die Qualität des politischen Prozesses in jeder Phase zu steigern.

Suggested Citation

  • Dylan Bradley & Janet Dwyer & Berkeley Hill, 2010. "The Evaluation of Rural Development Policy in the EU L’évaluation de la politique de développement rural dans l’Union européenne Die Evaluation der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums in der ," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 15-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:1:p:15-20
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2010.00148.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2010.00148.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2010.00148.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Midmore, Peter & Langstaff, Lesley & Lowman, Stephen & Vaughan, Alison, 2008. "Qualitative evaluation of European Rural Development Policy: Evidence from Comparative Case Studies," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44434, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Angela Bergschmidt, 2009. "Powerless Evaluation
L’impuissance de l’évaluation
Schwache Evaluierung," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 37-42, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Psaltopoulos, Demetris & Balamou, Eudokia & Skuras, Dimitris & Ratinger, Tomas & Sieber, Stefan, 2011. "Modelling the impacts of CAP Pillar 1 and 2 measures on local economies in Europe: Testing a case study-based CGE-model approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 53-69, January.
    2. Svoboda, J. & Lososová, J. & Zdeněk, R., 2016. "Subsidies on Investments in the EU Member States," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Brauer René & Dymitrow Mirek, 2014. "Quality of life in rural areas: A topic for the Rural Development policy?," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 25(25), pages 1-30, September.
    4. Jaehee Hwang & Jonghoon Park & Seongwoo Lee, 2018. "The Impact of the Comprehensive Rural Village Development Program on Rural Sustainability in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Whelan, Adele & McGuinness, Seamus & Barrett, Alan, 2021. "Review of International Approaches to Evaluating Rural and Community Development Investment and Supports," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS124, June.
    2. Psaltopoulos, Demetris & Balamou, Eudokia & Skuras, Dimitris & Ratinger, Tomas & Sieber, Stefan, 2011. "Modelling the impacts of CAP Pillar 1 and 2 measures on local economies in Europe: Testing a case study-based CGE-model approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 53-69, January.
    3. Iveta Vrabková & Pavel Šaradín, 2017. "The Technical Efficiency of Local Action Groups: a Czech Republic Case Study," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 1065-1074.
    4. John Davis, 2010. "Has rural development policy evaluation come of age? L’évaluation de la politique de développement rural est‐elle entrée dans l’âge adulte ? Ist die Evaluation der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlich," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 3-3, April.
    5. Marquardt, Doris & Mollers, Judith, 2010. "Evaluating the implementation process of LEADER in Romania," 118th Seminar, August 25-27, 2010, Ljubljana, Slovenia 94734, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Eleni PAPADOPOULOU & Christos PAPALEXIOU & Nikolaos HASANAGAS, 2012. "Participatory Evaluation Of Rural Development Programmes: A Qualitative Approach In The Case Of Modernisation Of Agricultural Holdings In Greece," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(1), pages 81-94, June.
    7. Lillemets, Jüri & Fertő, Imre & Viira, Ants-Hannes, 2022. "The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. David Blandford & Richard N. Boisvert & Berkeley Hill, 2010. "Improving the Evaluation of Rural Development Policy Pour une meilleure évaluation de la politique de développement rural Die Evaluation der Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums verbessern," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 4-9, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:1:p:15-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.