IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ora/journl/v1y2016i2p106-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theoretical Aspects Regarding Structural And Cohesion Funds Impact Evaluation Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Popescu Felix Angel

    (Doctoral School of Economic Sciences, University of Oradea, Research Centre for Competitiveness and Sustainable Development, University of Oradea)

  • Berinde Mihai

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, Department of International Affairs, University of Oradea,)

Abstract

From a theoretical point of view, it can be observed that the European Union financing mechanisms and resources were conceived in the spirit of convergence materialization. However, in practice, the suboptimal absorption of Structural and Cohesion funds is determined by a series of specificities of each Member State. Critics say that European financing rules have created the mold from which the projects are written and implemented only for spending money. But how is the impact of such projects measured? What tools does an evaluator have when assessing the impact of European funded projects? The paper deals with different macroeconomic evaluation stages, in order to better understand the use of specific evaluation methodologies, such as: cost-benefit analysis and its performance indicators, for the evaluation of projects submitted for financing; counterfactual method, for the evaluation of a financing sub-measure or measure integrated in a priority axis of an operational program; macroeconomic models, for the impact forecasting or evaluation on a specific country or a group of countries. For Romania, a specific macroeconomic model HERMIN was studied by various research centres and authors. The cost-benefit analysis became an often used instrument and prerequisite for some operational programs. However, the use of counterfactual method became a premier for Romania in 2015, when there were conducted impact evaluation studies on specific financing measures of the Regional Operational Program 2007-2013. On this multilevel evaluation scale, the authors would say that a realistic assessment lays in the cost-benefit analysis of the project, narrows throughout the counterfactual evaluation of the financing measure and disappears in the over-estimations of the macroeconomic models. We must take into consideration the „with funding” scenario and the „without funding” alternative in order to understand the additionality principle of European funding and to realize that the effects of economic convergence are visible in time.

Suggested Citation

  • Popescu Felix Angel & Berinde Mihai, 2016. "Theoretical Aspects Regarding Structural And Cohesion Funds Impact Evaluation Methodology," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 106-116, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2016:i:2:p:106-116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/volume/2016/n2/011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost-benefit; analysis; counterfactual; evaluation; macroeconomic; models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • E17 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models

    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:ora:journl:v:1:y:2016:i:2:p:106-116. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catalin ZMOLE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feoraro.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.