Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
after the event whether they were achieved or not. Though quantitative targets were often set and
an indicator system established, as required by the Structural Fund regulations, in many cases
neither were linked in a meaningful way to ultimate policy objectives.
Where targets were set, they were often not taken seriously in the sense of being carefully
determined in relation to the funding made available and what it could plausibly achieve.
Accordingly, they were either attained far too easily – in a few cases, in the first few months of
the programme being initiated – and, therefore, represented no challenge at all, or were
unattainable given the funds deployed. In most cases, they did not play a central role either in the
design or in the monitoring of policy and rarely featured in the policy debate. No authorities were
held accountable for not meeting the targets set and few questions were asked when the targets
were easily achieved.
In consequence, whether the targets were achieved or not cannot be taken as evidence of success
or failure of the measures implemented and they are generally of limited relevance for the
evaluation. Though systems for monitoring expenditure were established over the period in all
Member States together with a set of indicators for assessing the outcome of spending, they were
not a central part of the decision-making process.
Nevertheless, numerous evaluations have been carried out across the EU which have made use of
the systems established to assess particular programmes. Though many focused narrowly on
issues of financial implementation, a number examined the achievements of policy and are drawn
upon here. Moreover, quantitative indicators do say something about the achievements of the
programmes carried out even if far from everything. They at least provide evidence that the
projects supported had tangible outputs and produced results which, according to economic
theory, can be expected to have contributed to regional development and the pursuit of the wider
objectives of cohesion policy.
These wider objectives complicate the evaluation exercise. Policy was concerned with social and
territorial objectives as well as economic ones. These objectives, however, are even less tangible
than the economic aims of policy and tend to pose even greater problems of measuring
outcomes. Issues such as the quality of life or territorial balance are less susceptible to
quantification than economic growth and as yet few indicators exist which can be used to judge
whether they are improving or worsening. Nevertheless, they need to feature in the evaluation as
much as the more tangible outcomes.
CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW ISSUES
The evaluation needs equally to take account of the changes in underlying circumstances which
occurred over the period which inevitably affected the focus of programmes in the various policy
areas. The context in which cohesion policy was initially determined was, therefore, very different
in certain aspects from that which prevailed at the end of the programming period. New issues
arose during the period, or existing issues became more pressing, which posed new challenges
for regional development and, accordingly, for cohesion policy.
Prominent examples include:
• the continuing process of globalisation, which altered the environment in which firms
were operating, by putting increased pressure on those seeking to compete in terms of
low labour costs and opening up opportunities for the relocation of labour-intensive
activities to low wage countries;
11