IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Exploring the perspectives of a mixed case study approach for the evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2013

  • Terluin, Ida J.
  • Berkhout, Petra
Registered author(s):

    For the evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy in the programming period 2007-2013, the European Commission has designed a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF). Given a widespread lack of enthusiasm and the complexity of the CMEF, in this paper a comparative analysis of 22 evaluation methods of rural development policy is conducted in order to explore whether an alternative approach for the evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy exists. The mixed case study approach is identified as potential alternative. This approach combines the analysis of data on input and output with in-depth interviews. First results of testing this method in the mid-term evaluation of the EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2009 in the Dutch NUTS2 region of Zeeland indicate that this approach might be a promising alternative to the CMEF. It is easier to implement and renders useful insight into the question why measures have been effective.

    If 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.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/98987
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy with number 98987.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 10 Feb 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa122:98987
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eaae.org
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaa122:98987. 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: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.