IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jes/wpaper/y2017v9i3p423-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Cohesion Policy in Romania: new perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Teodora Diana IACOB

    (PhD candidate at National School of Political and Administrative Studies, Bucharest, Romania;)

Abstract

The 2014-2020 programming period has brought several changes in terms of programming the Cohesion Policy at European level. Based on the lessons learned from past experiences, the new vision for the implementation of interventions financed under the European Structural and Investment Funds determined the consolidation of some key instruments, including programme evaluation. Taking into consideration that Romania is presently evaluating its second generation EU financed programmes, the objective of the article is to analyse, in a comparative manner, the two planning phases of evaluation of Cohesion Policy in Romania. This will include the identification of the main changes that occurred in terms of elaboration and implementation of evaluation plans and a short description of the progress related to the development of the evaluation capacity of public policies at national level since new requirements and responsibilities were established with the scope of achieving more and better policy results.

Suggested Citation

  • Teodora Diana IACOB, 2017. "Evaluation of Cohesion Policy in Romania: new perspectives," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 9(3), pages 423-443, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:jes:wpaper:y:2017:v:9:i:3:p:423-443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ceswp.uaic.ro/articles/CESWP2017_IX3_IAC.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark A. Pollack, 2006. "Rational Choice and EU Politics," ARENA Working Papers 12, ARENA.
    2. Ostrom, Elinor, 2009. "An Agenda for the Study of Institutions," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 89-110, December.
    3. Jupille, Joseph, 1999. "The European Union and International Outcomes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 409-425, April.
    4. Kato, Junko, 1996. "Institutions and Rationality in Politics – Three Varieties of Neo-Institutionalists," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 553-582, October.
    5. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 2, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    2. Paul, Bénédique & Garrabé, Michel, 2011. "Le capital institutionnel dans l'analyse du développement : Prolongement théorique et premier test empirique [Institutional Capital in Economic Development Analysis: Theoretical Continuation and Fi," MPRA Paper 39016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Baxter Jamie, 2019. "Leadership, Law and Development," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 119-158, January.
    4. Fréchette, Alain & Lewis, Nathalie, 2011. "Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: Analyzing institutional change at multiple levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 582-589, September.
    5. Ayranci, Evren, 2010. "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    7. Schmidt, Susanne K., 2002. "Die Folgen der europäischen Integration für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Wandel durch Verflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    9. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Buitrago R., Ricardo E. & Barbosa Camargo, María Inés, 2021. "Institutions, institutional quality, and international competitiveness: Review and examination of future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 423-435.
    11. Blind, Georg, 2015. "Behavioural rules: Veblen, Nelson-Winter, Oström and beyond," MPRA Paper 66866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. White, Thomas A., 1992. "Landholder Cooperation For Sustainable Upland Watershed Management: A Theoretical Review Of The Problems And Prospects," Working Papers 11887, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Training Project.
    13. Takashi Sagara, 2018. "Specialist is Needed in Analysing Policy-Making," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 4(4), pages 58-66, 04-2018.
    14. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1991. "Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 277-304, July.
    15. Monique Borges & Eduardo Castro & João Marques, 2014. "Decision support methodologies in public policy formulation," ERSA conference papers ersa14p899, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    17. Hotte, Ngaio & Kozak, Robert & Wyatt, Stephen, 2019. "How institutions shape trust during collective action: A case study of forest governance on Haida Gwaii," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    19. Hugo Marcelo Zunino, 2006. "Power Relations in Urban Decision-making: Neo-liberalism, 'Techno-politicians' and Authoritarian Redevelopment in Santiago, Chile," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(10), pages 1825-1846, September.
    20. Beata Stepien & Monika Sulimowska-Formowicz, 2016. "Economic Vs. Organisational Perspective On Inter-Organisational Relations’ Analysis – Are Economists On The Dead-End Track?," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(1), pages 159-177, March.

    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:jes:wpaper:y:2017:v:9:i:3:p:423-443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csjesro.html .

    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: Alupului Ciprian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csjesro.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.