IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/regstd/v40y2006i2p179-188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Principles and purposes of European Union Cohesion policy evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Batterbury

Abstract

Batterbury S. C. E. (2006) Principles and purposes of European Union Cohesion policy evaluation, Regional Studies 40, 179-188. The paper provides a critical assessment of the evaluation of European Union Cohesion policy, focusing on the current regulatory framework, and the difficulties this poses for achieving rigorous and useful evaluation outputs. The paper argues that the evaluation framework for Cohesion policy is limited to three core purposes: accountability, improved planning, and quality and performance, but that it would benefit from widening this to include other functions. The decentralization of evaluation to the Member States means the evaluation of Cohesion policy relies on the presence of a pre-existing evaluation culture and skills base in the regions. Further, obstacles to effective evaluation arise from the lack of data comparability, rigidity of time-scales and a focus on performance approaches. Cohesion policy Evaluation purpose Regulatory framework Capacity Batterbury S. C. E. (2006) Les principes et les buts de l'evaluation de la politique de cohesion de l'UE, Regional Studies 40, 179-188. Cet article cherche a faire la critique de l'evaluation de la politique de cohesion de l'UE, portant sur le cadre reglementaire actuel et les difficultes qui se posent quant a la realisation de resultats a la fois rigoureux et utiles. L'article affirme que le cadre d'evaluation de la politique de cohesion se limite a trois buts cles: a savoir, la responsabilite financiere, un meilleur planning, et le rapport qualite-performance. Toujours est-il que le cadre profiterait d'un elargissement de ces fonctions-la. La decentralisation de l'evaluation aux pays-membres laisse supposer que l'evaluation de la politique de cohesion depend de la presence dans les regions d'une culture et des competences pre-existantes. En outre, des obstacles a l'evaluation efficace s'expliquent par le manque de donnees comparables, la rigidite des periodes de temps, et l'accent mis sur des approches de performance. Politique de cohesion Objectif de l'evaluation Cadre reglementaire Capacite Batterbury S. C. E. (2006) Prinzipien und Ziele der Evaluierung der Kohasionspolitik der EU, Regional Studies 40, 179-188. Dieser Aufsatz legt eine kritische Einschatzung der Evaluierung der Kohasionspolitik der EU vor, wobei er sich auf die gegenwartige Rahmenverordnungen konzentriert, und die Schwierigkeiten, welche diese fur die Erzielung grundlicher und nutzlicher Evaluierungsleistungen darstellt. Der Aufsatz vertritt den Standpunkt, dass der Evaluierungsrahmen fur Kohasionspolitik auf drei Hauptziele beschrankt ist: Verantwortlichkeit, bessere Planung, Qualititat, und Leistung, doch Nutzen aus einer Ausweitung ziehen wurde, die andere Funktionen miteinbezieht. Die Dezentralisierung der Evaluierung auf Mitgliedstaaten bedeutet, dass die Evaluierung der Kohasionspolitik vom Vorhandensein einer Evaluierungskuttur und Kompetenzen in den Regionen abhangt. Daruberhinaus ergeben sich Hindernisse fur wirksame Evaluierung aus dem Mangel vergleichbarer Daten, der Starrheit von Zeitrahmen und einer Konzentration auf Leistungsansatze. Kohasionspolitik Evaluierungsziele Verordnungsrahmen Kapazitat Batterbury S. C. E. (2006) Los principios y objetivos de la evaluacion de la Politica de Cohesion de la UE, Regional Studies 40, 179-188. Este articulo es un estudio critico sobre la evaluacion de la Politica de Cohesion de la UE y se ocupa principalmente de la estructura actual de regulacion y las dificultades que esta presenta para conseguir que los resultados de evaluacion sean rigurosos y utiles. Se arguye que la estructura de evaluacion de la Politica de Cohesion se limita a tres objetivos basicos: responsabilidad, una mejor planificacion, y calidad y rendimiento. Sin embargo, la estructura se beneficiaria si se ampliara para incluir otras funciones. La descentralizacion de, la evaluacion a los Estados Miembros, significa que la evaluacion sobre la Politica de Cohesion depende de la presencia de una cultura ya existente de evaluacion y de la base de capacidad en las respectivas regiones. Asimismo surgen obstaculos para conseguir una evaluacion eficaz, puesto que faltan datos comparables, los plazos son muy estrictos y se centran en los planteamientos de rendimiento. Politica de Cohesion Finalidad de la evaluacion Estructura de regulacion Capacidad

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Batterbury, 2006. "Principles and purposes of European Union Cohesion policy evaluation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 179-188.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:regstd:v:40:y:2006:i:2:p:179-188
    DOI: 10.1080/00343400600600504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343400600600504
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00343400600600504?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eija-Riita Niinikoski & Laura Kelhä & Ville Isoherranen, 2017. "The European Cohesion Policy and Structural Funds in Sparsely Populated Areas: A Case Study of the University of Oulu," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 6(1), pages 77-96.
    2. Panagiotis Koudoumakis & George Botzoris & Angelos Protopapas, 2022. "Cohesion policy evaluation: Guidelines for selection of appropriate methods," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1062-1084, October.
    3. Tron Zsuzsanna, 2009. "Philosophy And Methods Of Examining The Impact Of The European Regional Policy," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 466-471, May.
    4. Pablo PODADERA RIVERA & Francisco J. CALDERÓN VÁZQUEZ, 2019. "Rethinking the territorial cohesion in the EU: institutional and functional elements of the concept," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 10, pages 41-62, December.
    5. Miroslav ?ipikal, 2014. "Political and administrative barriers of implementation of Cohesion policy in Slovakia," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0902743, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    6. Attila Varga, 2014. "Challenges in modeling the impacts of modern development policies: The case of the GMR-approach," EcoMod2014 7151, EcoMod.
    7. Jiménez, Fernando & Zabala Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José Luis, 2007. "Efficiency in Public Research Centers: Evaluating the Spanish Food Technology Program," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2007/04, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    8. Jiménez-Sáez, Fernando & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L. & Castro-Martínez, Elena, 2011. "Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 230-241, March.
    9. Zsuzsanna Tron, 2009. "Examining the impact of European regional policy," IWE Working Papers 188, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Harvey Armstrong & Benito Giordano & Calum Macleod, 2015. "The durability of European Regional Development Fund partnership and governance structures: a case study of the Scottish Highlands and Islands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1566-1584, December.
    12. Miroslav Sipikal, 2015. "Political and Administrative Barriers of Cohesion Policy Implementation in Slovakia," International Journal of Social Sciences, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 4(2), pages 39-48, May.
    13. Olejniczak, Karol & Wojtowicz, Dominika, 2016. "Innowacje w kształceniu kadr analitycznych administracji. Przykład szkolenia opartego na grze," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 1-16, April.
    14. Zsuzsanna Tron, 2009. "Evaluation Methods of European Regional Policy and Reasons for Different Outcomes," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 12(32), pages 149-185, (2).
    15. Lenihan, Helena, 2011. "Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a 'new' way of doing it?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 323-332, November.
    16. Pelucha, Martin & Kveton, Viktor & Potluka, Oto, 2019. "Using mixed method approach in measuring effects of training in firms: Case study of the European Social Fund support," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 146-155.
    17. Cunico, Giovanni & Aivazidou, Eirini & Mollona, Edoardo, 2021. "Beyond financial proxies in Cohesion Policy inputs’ monitoring: A system dynamics approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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:taf:regstd:v:40:y:2006:i:2:p:179-188. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRES20 .

    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.