1. Fabrizio Guzzo
Barcelona, 4 May 2017

2. Presentation outline
1. S3 as an experimentalist and deliberative policy context: the role of and main implications for monitoring
2. Stakeholders' involvement in monitoring: benefits and obstacles
3. Some evidence: EDP survey. Poland, Italy

3. S3 as an experimentalist and deliberative policy context (1)
Experimentalist policy context: results-orientation and trial and error approach (Barca 2009; McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2016; Rodrik 2010)
An iterative process (multi-level governance)
1. Framework goals and rules established by at the higher level (EC Regulation – Ex-Ante Conditionality)
2. Discretion at lower level on how to achieve these ends
3. Report regularly on performance (ex.: monitoring requirements, AIRs, mid-term review), as well as peer-review
4. Goals, performance measures and decision making procedures are periodically reviewed (adapted from Sabel and Simon, 2010)

4. Inspired by deliberative democracy (Gambetta, 1998)
S3 as an experimentalist and deliberative policy context (2)
Inspired by deliberative democracy (Gambetta, 1998)
Rationale
Better decisions (new and better solutions)
Broader consensus and legitimacy on decisions
Greater responsibility on meeting objectives
Capacity building
Debate not only to prevent (and solve) conflict but also to gather new information and knowledge
….but, there are risks
Some pre-conditions
Manipulation, conformism, paralyzing effect
Minimum requirements in terms of participation, availability and circulation of information and agenda setting

5. S3 as an experimentalist and deliberative policy context (3)
The role of Monitoring (and Evaluation)
supporting policy and management decision making (strong focus on M&E due to the results-orientation logic of the policy)
The S3 agenda is based on (and requires) learning and institutional capacity building, which is impossible without M&E
M&E contribute to increase transparency, strengthen accountability and build public trust

6. Open to changes and adaptations
S3 as an experimentalist and deliberative policy context (4)
Main implications for Monitoring
A clear idea of what constitutes success and observable criteria for monitoring it
A clear and agreed set of indicators, as an outcome of a deliberative process
Adequate human resources and skills (collect data and valuable information, reports, communication, etc.)
Open to changes and adaptations
The implementation body must be monitored closely by a principal (with political authority) with a clear stake in the outcomes (adapted from Rodrik, 2004)

7. Growing emphasis on stakeholders' involvement within the EU Cohesion policy context
Example: EU delegated regulation 204/2014 on code of conduct of partnership in the framework of the ESIFs
Involvement of relevant partners in programmes' design, monitoring and evaluation
To make use of technical assistance to strengthen the institutional capacity of relevant partners (workshops, training sessions, networking activities, etc.)

8. Positive effects on policy effectiveness
The choice of outcome (result) indicators
"The choices of outcomes (results) should be the result of a deliberative process. […] For outcome (result) indicators to be truly effective as a tool for focusing the attention of all agents, their selection must be the result of a participatory process and an informed and informative public debate" (Barca and McCann, 2011: 5;13).
common information and understanding on what policy measures aim at;
public debate and reasoned choice of objectives (building consensus and ownership);
ex-ante disciplinary pressure on policy makers;
check on the progress towards targets (Barca and McCann, 2011; Kusek and Rist, 2004)
Positive effects on policy effectiveness

9. Responsibilities
Clear attribution of the responsibilities in the deliberative process
Political level: to make goals explicit in terms of clear-cut outcomes
Administrators (with the support of academics and experts): turning outcomes into appropriate indicators and targets settings
Relevant partners and citizenship organisations: responsibility and room to voice their consent and dissent on the choices made by politicians and administrators and to advance proposals
Challenge in involving citizens: lack of trust, information availability and circulation, cultural barriers
Involving partners not just in the design phase, but also during implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Barca and McCann, 2011).

10. Some evidence from…..
EDP survey
Poland
Italy

11. Role of stakeholders in monitoring
Direct involvement
Indirect
Involvement

12. Literature
Barca, F. (2009), An Agenda for the Reformed Cohesion Policy, Report to the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Brussels, April.
Barca, F. and P. McCann (2011), “Outcome Indicators and Targets – Towards a Performance Oriented EU Cohesion Policy”, High Level Group reflecting on future Cohesion Policy, Outcome Indicators and Targets, methodological note, June.
Gambetta D. (1998), "Claro!: An Essay on Discursive Machismo", in Elster J. ed., Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
Kusek, J. and R. C. Rist (2004), Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Handbook for Development Practitioners, Washington, DC, World Bank.
McCann, P. and R. Ortega-Argilés (2016), "Smart Specialisation: Insight from the EU Experience and Implications for Other Economies", in Investigaciones Regionales – Journal of Regional Research, 36:
Sabel, C. and W. H. Simon 2010, "Minimalism and Experimentalism in the Administrative State", in Public Law Research Paper, , Columbia Law School.
Rodrik, D. (2004), "Industrial policies for the twenty-first century", John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty Research Working Papers Series.
Rodrik, D. (2010), "Diagnostics before Prescription", in Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3):

13. Thank you! @S3Platform http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu 13