Mid-term evaluations of Community Initiatives under European Union Structural Funds: A process between accounting and common learning

Abstract

Eser T. W. and Nussmueller E. (2006) Mid-term evaluations of Community Initiatives under European Union Structural Funds: a process between accounting and common learning, Regional Studies 40, 249–258. The paper presents an actor-centred analysis of the mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the Structural Funds, based on research on the MTEs of the Community Initiatives. Actors define their roles and interests with regard to the perceived functions of the evaluation – accountability and/or learning – leading to conflicts because of differences in understanding and interpretation. The analysis identifies the conflicts that occur regarding the purpose of the MTE. Key issues are the trade-offs between the functions of the MTE; the influence of administration ‘policy style’ on the MTE; the potentials and limits of MTE as an external evaluation; and the philosophical foundations of the MTE. Mid-term evaluations Purpose Conflicts ;Key issues Eser T. W. et Nussmueller E. (2006) Les évaluations à mi-parcours des initiatives communautaires selon les Fonds structurels de l'UE – un processus entre la comptabilité et l'apprentissage commun, Regional Studies 40, 249–258. A partir d'une analyse centrée sur les acteurs et fondée sur les recherches faites sur les évaluations à mi-parcours des initiatives communautaires, cet article cherche à examiner l'évaluation à mi-parcours des Fonds structurels. Les acteurs définissent leurs rôles et leurs intérêts par rapport à l'idée qu'ils se font de la fonction de l'évaluation – la comptabilité et/ou l'apprentissage – ce qui entraîne des conflits à cause des différences de compréhension et d'interprétation. L'analyse identifie les conflits qui s'ensuivent quant à l'objectif de l'évaluation à mi-parcours. Les questions-clé sont les suivantes: les compromis entre les fonctions de l'évaluation à mi-parcours; l'influence ‘style politique’ d'administration sur l'évaluation à mi-parcours; le potentiel et les limites de l'évaluation à mi-parcours en tant que mode d'évaluation externe; et les fondements philosophiques de l'évaluation à mi-parcours. Evaluations à mi-parcours Objectif C onflits Questions-clé Eser T. W. und Nussmueller E. (2006) Halbzeitbewertungen von Gemeinschaftinitiativen unter EU Strukturfonds – ein Prozess zwischen Bilanzierung und gewöhnlichem Lernen, Regional Studies 40, 249–258. Dieser Aufsatz legt eine akteurs zentrierte Analyse der Halbzeitbewertung (mid-term evaluation = MTE) der Strukturfonds vor, die sich auf die Untersuchung von MTEs von Gemeinschaftsinitiativen stützt. Akteure bestimmen Rollen und Interessen im Hinblick auf die von ihnen als solche erkannten Funktionen der Evaluierung-Verantwortlichkeit und/oder Lernen, das wegen Unterschieden in Verständnis und Interpretation zu Konflikten führt. Die Analyse stellt die Konflikte fest, die im Hinblick auf den Zweck der MET auftreten. Hauptprobleme sind: Ausgleichfindung zwischen den Funktionen der MET; der Einfluß des ‘Policy-style’ der Verwaltung auf die MTE; die Potentiale und Grenzen der MTE als externe Evaluierun...

Evaluation and policy learning: The learners' perspective

“…In the context of evaluation, there are numerous actors involved in different aspects of the evaluation, each of them assuming a different role. Generally speaking, we can distinguish four types of actors (Eser & Nussmueller ). The first type is the ‘programme unit’, which is the administrative unit responsible for the evaluated governmental intervention.…”

The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating learning and policy change

“…Recent developments in the policy evaluation literature highlight the value of formative evaluation approaches focusing on the learning processes at stake within partnerships and involving the mobilization of social and political actors into the evaluation process (Hambleton & Thomas, 1995;Batterbury, 2006;Eser & Nussmueller, 2006;Lähteenmäki-Smith & Böhme, 2004;Diez, 2001;Raines & Taylor, 2002). Such approaches require evaluation to become an ongoing process embedded into projects, rather than an ex-post, discrete event (Diez, 2001;Murtagh & McKay, 2003;Batterbury, 2006).…”

“…Current evaluation practices hardly perform a formative role which would help programme and project stakeholders improve implementation throughout the programme cycle. The Mid-Term Evaluations of INTERREG programmes fall short of this formative function (Eser & Nussmueller, 2006). Besides, there is no ex-post evaluation required at the level of INTERREG projects, which has a negative impact on the general ability to learn from past projects (Lähteenmäki-Smith & Dubois, 2006).…”

“…but can also improve the organizational and policy learning process among project stakeholders by stimulating reflexivity and the structuring of the collective learning experience (Batterbury, 2006;Eser & Nussmueller, 2006;Diez, 2001) -i.e. an evaluation for learning.…”

Evaluating Efficiency in the Implementation of Structural Funds Operations

“…Evaluation issues exist that are highly relevant to the different stages of the evaluation cycle of Structural Funds (SF) programmes (Bachtler and Wren, 2006;Batterbury, 2006). Among these, assessing the efficiency of the form of assistance is a key issue within the evaluation process (Eser and Nussmueller, 2006;European Commission, 2005). In line with the Tavistock Institute (2003), efficiency is related to whether the outputs of the SF Operational Programmes (OPs) were obtained at reasonable cost, considering everything attained in exchange for public expenditure as output.…”