[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/300013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Enhancing objectivity and decision relevance: A better framework for evaluating cohesion policies

Author

Listed:
  • Heinemann, Friedrich
  • Asatryan, Zareh
  • Bachtrögler, Julia
  • Birkholz, Carlo
  • Corti, Franceso
  • von Ehrlich, Maximilian
  • Fratesi, Ugo
  • Fuest, Clemens
  • Lang, Valentin
  • Weber, Martin
Abstract
By international comparison as well as compared to other EU policies, the EU's Cohesion Policy (CP) evaluation system is far developed and institutionalized. This paper analyses the remaining gaps and shortcomings in the CP evaluation system against principles established by the OECD and others and provides recommendations on how to further improve it. The presence of a broad and imprecise CP objective function emerges as a key challenge for evaluations. The evaluation culture is not equally developed among all Member States and regions. In quite some cases, an unfavorable equilibrium is found which is characterized by limited evaluation capacities, poor methods, and a formalistic approach to evaluations. Programme evaluations in the Member States are usually commissioned by national or regional managing authorities who have a vested interest in promoting the success of their programmes. Evaluations are carried out by evaluators who are functionally independent, but often lack factual independence. There is also limited international competition in the market for evaluations commissioned by national or regional authorities. Evaluation methods applied in CP programme evaluations mostly lag behind academic advancements and evaluation reports often do not transparently describe their methodological limitations. As the EU body responsible for implementing CP across all 27 Member States, the Commission may also have an overly optimistic perspective on CP. Finally, there is little evidence that evaluation findings are used for decision-making processes, funding allocation and the design of programmes. The paper offers a number of recommendations how to advance the evaluation system: (1) Reorient CP reforms towards a more focused set of objectives; (2) Specify evaluation obligations more precisely in the Common Provision Regulation and set out a 'charter for evaluators'; (3) Introduce an 'evaluate first' requirement when preparing or updating programmes; (4) Promote the use of counterfactual methods; (5) Explicitly link funding decisions at programme and policy level to evaluation results; (6) Implement measures to stimulate a European market for CP evaluations; and (7) establish a standing European Advisory Panel on CP evaluation to foster independent third-party reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Heinemann, Friedrich & Asatryan, Zareh & Bachtrögler, Julia & Birkholz, Carlo & Corti, Franceso & von Ehrlich, Maximilian & Fratesi, Ugo & Fuest, Clemens & Lang, Valentin & Weber, Martin, 2024. "Enhancing objectivity and decision relevance: A better framework for evaluating cohesion policies," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-034, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:300013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/300013/1/1894157028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Fuchs & Kai Gehring, 2017. "The Home Bias in Sovereign Ratings," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(6), pages 1386-1423.
    2. Julia Bachtrögler & Ugo Fratesi & Giovanni Perucca, 2020. "The influence of the local context on the implementation and impact of EU Cohesion Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34, January.
    3. Augusto Cerqua & Guido Pellegrini, 2023. "I will survive! The impact of place-based policies when public transfers fade out," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(8), pages 1605-1618, August.
    4. Marc Robinson & Duncan P Last, 2009. "A Basic Model of Performance-Based Budgeting," IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 09/01, International Monetary Fund.
    5. Corti, Francesco & Pedralli, Matteo & Pancotti, Chiara, 2024. "The recovery and resilience facility: Key innovations and the interplay with cohesion policy," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Mr. Duncan P Last & Mr. Marc Robinson, 2009. "A Basic Model of Performance-Based Budgeting," IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 2009/001, International Monetary Fund.
    7. Paolo Di Caro & Ugo Fratesi, 2022. "One policy, different effects: Estimating the region‐specific impacts of EU cohesion policy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 307-330, January.
    8. Leino-Sandberg, Päivi, 2024. "Cohesion policy and the principle of subsidiarity: A legal analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-042, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    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. Catalin Florin Zeti & Sebastian Ilie Dragoe, 2020. "Opinions Regarding The Budgetary Performance In The Public Sector Of Romania," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 2, pages 73-82, April.
    2. Sergii Slukhai, 2011. "M&E and Budget Program Performance Measurement in Ukraine: Current State and Needs for Improvement," European Financial and Accounting Journal, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(2), pages 28-47.
    3. Alawattage, Chandana & Alsaid, Loai Ali, 2018. "Accounting and structural reforms: A case study of Egyptian electricity," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 15-35.
    4. Jakub Haas & Eva Gajdošová, 2016. "The Performance Indicators for The State Health-related Expenditures: Lessons from OECD," European Financial and Accounting Journal, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(1), pages 5-22.
    5. Alaa Mohama Malo Alain & Magdy Melegy Abdul Hakim Melegy, 2017. "Program and Performance Budgeting System in Public Sector Organizations: An Analytical Study in Saudi Arabian Context," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 157-166, April.
    6. SVETLANA Solyannikova & С. Солянникова П., 2015. "Ответственная Бюджетная Политика В Социальной Сфере: Проблемы Разработки И Реализации // A Responsible Budgetary Policy In The Social Sphere: Problems Of Development And Implementation," Экономика. Налоги. Право // Economics, taxes & law, ФГОБУ "Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации" // Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation, issue 5, pages 45-51.
    7. E. Marrocu & F. Aresu & R. Paci, 2024. "EU funds and TFP growth: how the impact changed over time and space," Working Paper CRENoS 202412, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    8. Frank Ohemeng & Emelia A. Asiedu & Theresa Obuobisa‐Darko & Juliana A. Abane & Kenneth Parku, 2022. "The perception of employees on performance‐based budgeting reforms in developing countries: The perspective from Ghana," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 74-92, December.
    9. Luisa Alamá-Sabater & Yolanda de Llanos & Miguel Ángel Márquez & Emili Tortosa-Ausina, 2023. "Evaluating the spatial mismatch between population and factor endowments: The case of the European Union," Working Papers 2023/06, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    10. Anatoly Yakovlevich Zaporozhan, 0. "Non-program Classification of Expenses of the Program Budget," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 5.
    11. Sergii SLukhai, 2011. "Monitoring and evaluation as tools for enhancing public expenditure management in Ukraine," Financial Theory and Practice, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 35(2), pages 217-239.
    12. Cem Dener & Joanna Alexandra Watkins & William Leslie Dorotinsky, 2011. "Financial Management Information Systems : 25 Years of World Bank Experience on What Works and What Doesn't," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2297.
    13. Mattoasi Mattoasi, 2015. "Current Practice Performance Measurement Model: A Case Study in Indonesia," Journal of Education and Vocational Research, AMH International, vol. 6(2), pages 34-41.
    14. Trenovski Borce & Marjan Nikolov, 2015. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Performance Based Budgeting Implementation," Journal Articles, Center For Economic Analyses, pages 5-44, December.
    15. Francesco Cappellano & Francesco Molica & Teemu Makkonen, 2024. "Missions and Cohesion Policy: is there a match?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 360-374.
    16. Paolo Di Caro & Ugo Fratesi, 2022. "One policy, different effects: Estimating the region‐specific impacts of EU cohesion policy," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 307-330, January.
    17. Ioannou, Stefanos & Wójcik, Dariusz & Pažitka, Vladimír, 2021. "Financial centre bias in sub-sovereign credit ratings," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Riccardo Crescenzi & Ugo Fratesi & Vassilis Monastiriotis, 2020. "Back to the member states? Cohesion Policy and the national challenges to the European Union," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 5-9, January.
    19. Panagiotis KOUDOUMAKIS & George BOTZORIS & Angelos PROTOPAPAS, 2021. "The Contribution Of Cohesion Policy To The Development And Convergence Of The Regions Of The European Union," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(2), pages 277-290, June.
    20. Deena Zaidi, 2015. "Eurozone Debt Crisis and Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies," Global Credit Review (GCR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(01), pages 99-111.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EU budget; cohesion policy; evaluation; performance budgeting; regional policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • H87 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - International Fiscal Issues; International Public Goods
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:zewdip:300013. 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.

    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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.