The new ambitions for 2014-2020 European structural and investment funds evaluation: pouring water in a leaking container?

Laura Polverari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

One of the recurring criticisms that have been levied to EU Cohesion policy has been its inability to prove its effectiveness and value for money. These criticisms, and the parallel growing pressures to reduce the resources assigned to the policy in recent rounds of budget negotiations, have led to the introduction of changes in the regulatory obligations attached to funding. In the 2014-2020 regulations, efforts to improve the policy’s effectiveness have primarily related to a set of new obligations intended to improve the results-orientation of programme design and implementation, and to a strengthening of the purposefulness of evaluation activities, including through a shift from evaluating implementation to appraising impacts. This article focuses on the latter theme. It reviews the main evaluation obligations foreseen by the Common Provisions Regulations (CPR) and the change in evaluation focus advocated by DG REGIO, the preparation of Evaluation Plans in selected EU programmes and these plans’ coverage, focus, objectives and resources. The article concludes with some
reflections on the challenges that the new regulatory framework entails for managing authorities. It argues that the new CPR and Commission guidance notes are addressing past weaknesses by adding new demands to old ones without having sufficiently addressed the problems behind the partly ineffectual responses to already existing requirements, and calls for a stock-taking exercise in order to appreciate what is working, what is not working and what is needed to make evaluation a real programme management and accountability tool.
LanguageEnglish
Pages59-67
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Structural and Investment Funds Journal
Volume4
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 26 Sep 2016

Fingerprint

Investment funds
Water
Structural funds
Evaluation
Container
Obligation
Resources
Criticism
Cohesion policy
Regulatory framework
Preparation
Funding
Program management
Value for money
Guidance
Accountability
Authority
Exercise

Keywords

  • European Union cohesion policy
  • common provisions regulations
  • structural funds
  • investment funds

Cite this

@article{83ea706069d84fe8bb8b9a9bf6d72373,
title = "The new ambitions for 2014-2020 European structural and investment funds evaluation: pouring water in a leaking container?",
abstract = "One of the recurring criticisms that have been levied to EU Cohesion policy has been its inability to prove its effectiveness and value for money. These criticisms, and the parallel growing pressures to reduce the resources assigned to the policy in recent rounds of budget negotiations, have led to the introduction of changes in the regulatory obligations attached to funding. In the 2014-2020 regulations, efforts to improve the policy’s effectiveness have primarily related to a set of new obligations intended to improve the results-orientation of programme design and implementation, and to a strengthening of the purposefulness of evaluation activities, including through a shift from evaluating implementation to appraising impacts. This article focuses on the latter theme. It reviews the main evaluation obligations foreseen by the Common Provisions Regulations (CPR) and the change in evaluation focus advocated by DG REGIO, the preparation of Evaluation Plans in selected EU programmes and these plans’ coverage, focus, objectives and resources. The article concludes with somereflections on the challenges that the new regulatory framework entails for managing authorities. It argues that the new CPR and Commission guidance notes are addressing past weaknesses by adding new demands to old ones without having sufficiently addressed the problems behind the partly ineffectual responses to already existing requirements, and calls for a stock-taking exercise in order to appreciate what is working, what is not working and what is needed to make evaluation a real programme management and accountability tool.",
keywords = "European Union cohesion policy, common provisions regulations, structural funds, investment funds",
author = "Laura Polverari",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "26",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "59--67",
journal = "European Structural and Investment Funds Journal",
issn = "2196-8268",
number = "2",

}

The new ambitions for 2014-2020 European structural and investment funds evaluation : pouring water in a leaking container? / Polverari, Laura.

In: European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 26.09.2016, p. 59-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The new ambitions for 2014-2020 European structural and investment funds evaluation

T2 - European Structural and Investment Funds Journal

AU - Polverari, Laura

PY - 2016/9/26

Y1 - 2016/9/26

N2 - One of the recurring criticisms that have been levied to EU Cohesion policy has been its inability to prove its effectiveness and value for money. These criticisms, and the parallel growing pressures to reduce the resources assigned to the policy in recent rounds of budget negotiations, have led to the introduction of changes in the regulatory obligations attached to funding. In the 2014-2020 regulations, efforts to improve the policy’s effectiveness have primarily related to a set of new obligations intended to improve the results-orientation of programme design and implementation, and to a strengthening of the purposefulness of evaluation activities, including through a shift from evaluating implementation to appraising impacts. This article focuses on the latter theme. It reviews the main evaluation obligations foreseen by the Common Provisions Regulations (CPR) and the change in evaluation focus advocated by DG REGIO, the preparation of Evaluation Plans in selected EU programmes and these plans’ coverage, focus, objectives and resources. The article concludes with somereflections on the challenges that the new regulatory framework entails for managing authorities. It argues that the new CPR and Commission guidance notes are addressing past weaknesses by adding new demands to old ones without having sufficiently addressed the problems behind the partly ineffectual responses to already existing requirements, and calls for a stock-taking exercise in order to appreciate what is working, what is not working and what is needed to make evaluation a real programme management and accountability tool.

AB - One of the recurring criticisms that have been levied to EU Cohesion policy has been its inability to prove its effectiveness and value for money. These criticisms, and the parallel growing pressures to reduce the resources assigned to the policy in recent rounds of budget negotiations, have led to the introduction of changes in the regulatory obligations attached to funding. In the 2014-2020 regulations, efforts to improve the policy’s effectiveness have primarily related to a set of new obligations intended to improve the results-orientation of programme design and implementation, and to a strengthening of the purposefulness of evaluation activities, including through a shift from evaluating implementation to appraising impacts. This article focuses on the latter theme. It reviews the main evaluation obligations foreseen by the Common Provisions Regulations (CPR) and the change in evaluation focus advocated by DG REGIO, the preparation of Evaluation Plans in selected EU programmes and these plans’ coverage, focus, objectives and resources. The article concludes with somereflections on the challenges that the new regulatory framework entails for managing authorities. It argues that the new CPR and Commission guidance notes are addressing past weaknesses by adding new demands to old ones without having sufficiently addressed the problems behind the partly ineffectual responses to already existing requirements, and calls for a stock-taking exercise in order to appreciate what is working, what is not working and what is needed to make evaluation a real programme management and accountability tool.

KW - European Union cohesion policy

KW - common provisions regulations

KW - structural funds

KW - investment funds

UR - http://www.lexxion.de/en/zeitschriften/fachzeitschriften-englisch/estif.html

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 59

EP - 67

JO - European Structural and Investment Funds Journal

JF - European Structural and Investment Funds Journal

SN - 2196-8268

IS - 2

ER -