Presentation on theme: "1 Territorial development in Austria (and elsewhere) – CBC, Transnational and Territorial Programmes Bernd Schuh – Austrian Institute for Regional Studies."— Presentation transcript:
1 Territorial development in Austria (and elsewhere) – CBC, Transnational and Territorial Programmes Bernd Schuh – Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning Evaluation Conference Budapest, September 2013 Approaching the „dark side“ of the force or the return of the Jedis?
2 Some introductory provocations Every six years the EU funds seem to re-invent themselves Every six years it is astonishing to see quite some surprise that EU fund programming has to be done Every six years the Commission promises that this programming period will offer less administrative burden than the previous ones Every six years the Regulations determining the programming are put in force too late and Every six years programmers and evaluators are running behind schedule and improvise…
4 Common principles – lets get started “The starting point in designing any public intervention is to identify a problem to be addressed” (“Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy– European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund – Concepts and Recommendations”, Guidance document, European Commission Directorate – General Regional Policy) “Theory of Change” produce a narrative of how the change envisaged will take effect establish contribution to results in the programme area The “need-driven” approach as overarching principle of CSF funds – with “need” being defined as observable significant difference between the status quo and a situation as it should be (need is then the gap in results) – see Kaufman – World Bank
6 Intervention logic – “unchained” Past activities/ interventions Estimations about future socio-economic developments Experiences/aspirations of stakeholders Strategy If you do X… Effects … you will achieve Y InputsActivitiesOutputsResults for beneficiaries Policy results target groups, sectors, regions ImplementationChange Logic of actionLogic of result ContextOther intervening factors
9 Aspects and “bloody stories” Identification of „needs“: The tricky bit in capturing what people need aspect of data availability and capturing different territorial scales The retrospect implication of results you have to be aware what to capture baseline (see transnational cooperation) The special case of SWOT cutting off too early – potentials, barriers (ext., int.)
11 Needs of the area Priority Axes/ IPs/ SOs Intended outcomes/ results Actual outcomes/ results Allocated Inputs Actual Inputs Targeted Outputs Achieved Outputs In-depth territorial analysis Implementation National strategies Macroregional strategies etc. Needs analysis Other factors IP … Investment Priority SO… Specific Objective Source: OIR, 2013 based on: Barca, McCann, 2011: 4; European Commission, 2013a: 5 Programming & implementation process Main objective of the Programme OperationsContribution impact Input, Output & Outcome/Result
12 Identifying result indicators – Innovation Example I Specific Programme reality Call system („bottom-up approach“) diversity of results, diversity of outputs Types of actions (pilot actions, joint strategies, action plans, transnational tools,...) 8 Member States (2 MS partly involved) EU-rules on indicator results Increased innovation capacity 1) change 2) Selection criterion 3) baseline Moderate & modest innovators *SO level *1-2 indicators / SO *Capturing the changes (baseline + change) *List of common indicators & programme specific ind. *Measurable (target) evaluation (net effect) counterfactual *Qualitative & quantitative CE2020-1.1-index Share of CE regions in regional CE2020-1.1-index classes result indicator: target: baseline: data need: Relevant indicators reported from beneficiaries / updated RIS Observable trend of central Europe regions improving their performance in regional CE2020-1.1-index classes
13 Identifying result indicators – Innovation Example II Intended Change: Increased innovation capacity Need to be tackled/hypothesis behind: Critical mass needs to be targeted to implement innovations Baseline: The innovation capacity index* is regarded not being able to depict the relevant developments aimed at, therefore a new index (CE2020-1.1) will be created being based on an extract from Regional Innovation Scoreboard (e.g. 2012) This index will illustrate the baseline situation and will include the CE-regions’ performance in the fields: SMEs innovating in-house (% of all SMEs) Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (% of all SMEs) Public-private co-publications Technological (product or process) innovators (% of all SMEs) Non-technological (marketing or organisational) innovators (% of all SMEs) * Due to the fact, that the innovation capacity index considers mainly indicators, which are not the target of CE interventions (e.g. Literacy rate, ICT expenditure as % of GDP,...)
14 Identifying result indicators – Innovation Example III Result: Share of CE regions in regional CE2020-1.1-index* classes Target: Observable trend of central Europe regions improving their performance in regional CE2020-1.1-index classes (Min. 2-3 regions improving their performance from one regional CE2020-1.1-index class to the next one) * CE2020-1.1-index: defined as the newly created index, tailor-made for the central Europe area (based on the RIS)
15 The relevant data/indicators for the CE2020-1.1-index should be reported by the programme beneficiaries, including indicators targeting: SMEs innovating in-house (% of all SMEs) Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (% of all SMEs) Public-private co-publications Technological (product or process) innovators (% of all SMEs) Non-technological (marketing or organisational) innovators (% of all SMEs) The current version of the Regional Innovation Scoreboard will provide the necessary information for a counterfactual evaluation programme specific information will be available from the monitoring and general information will be available from the current Regional Innovation Scoreboard Identifying result indicators – Innovation Example IV
16 Aspects and “bloody stories” The result indicators – the friendly alien? The linking of results with result indicators – better think early than do the job over and over again The tricky issue of capturing results – what the COM guidelines do not tell you The assessment of targets – delays are a certainty The output indicators – everything “easy-cheesy”? The importance and implication of target setting – performance framework
17 General closing remarks and lessons learned The „new regime“ of ERDF/ CBC/ transnational cooperation and ESF is not really „new“ – see CMEF DG Agri The consequences of implementing this approach have not yet been fully digested by MA and evaluators: The consequence of the performance framework The consequence of the evaluation plan The consequence of applying specific evaluation methods (e.g. assessing the counterfactual) The consequence of all of this for the budget on TA/ evaluations The consequence for the need of know-how within the MAs
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.