Restrictions of empirical policy analyses: the example of the evaluation of rural development policies
AbstractThe present paper asks under what circumstances a standardisation of evaluations would be feasible in order to enable a comprehensible aggregation of results for the European administration. We argue that in the complex environment of rural development the adequate definition of system boundaries is a precondition for the successful application of empirical methods and the identification of causal effects. If macro effects and self-enforcing effects are important, the objects of inquiry have to be defined on a higher observational level. In this case, the statistical identification may not be possible because there might be hardly any comparable (“counterfactual”) observations. We conclude that evaluators need definite theoretical guidance in order to define consistently their field of inquiry. Only then, the goal of comparable and aggregable quantified results might be achievable to a certain degree.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 118th Seminar, August 25-27, 2010, Ljubljana, Slovenia with number 95320.
Date of creation: Aug 2010
Date of revision:
evaluation; complex systems; causal inference; counterfactual approach; Community/Rural/Urban Development; O22; Q18; R58; C51;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O22 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
- Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
- R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
- C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-11-13 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Baldwin, Richard & Martin, Philippe, 2003.
"Agglomeration and Regional Growth,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3960, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Richard Baldwin & Toshihiro Okubo, 2005.
"Heterogeneous Firms, Agglomeration and Economic Geography: Spatial Selection and Sorting,"
NBER Working Papers
11650, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Richard E. Baldwin & Toshihiro Okubo, 2006. "Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: spatial selection and sorting," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 323-346, June.
- Puga, Diego, 2001.
"European Regional Policies in Light of Recent Location Theories,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2767, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Diego Puga, 2002. "European regional policies in light of recent location theories," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 373-406, October.
- Skoufias, Emmanuel, 2005. "PROGRESA and its impacts on the welfare of rural households in Mexico:," Research reports 139, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Chen, Huey-Tsyh & Rossi, Peter H., 1987. "The theory-driven approach to validity," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-103, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.