„Effectiveness of interventions co-financed by the EU structural funds in Wielkopolska”

1. „Effectiveness of interventions co-financed by the EU structural funds in Wielkopolska” Authors: Prof. Paweł Churski Anna Borowczak –PhD Candidate Contact: chur@amu.edu.plaborowcz@amu.edu.pl Affiliation:Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management,Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań & Faculty of HumanitiesHigh School of Humanities and Journalism in Poznań

2. Presentation outline: • Evaluation of the regional policy • Regional policy paradigms and functional cohesion • Intraregional divergence of the Wielkopolska region • Interventions from structural funds in 2004-2006 • Empirical analysis of structural funds effectiveness for Wielkopolska • Conclusions

3. PART 1Theoretical foundations for evaluation of regional policy

4. What is evaluation? Evaluation is a commonly applied socio-economic research verifying the effectiveness and efficiency of public intervention implemented (Churski & Borowczak 2010) Main features of evaluation research: • systematic way of researching • assessing quality and worth of public intervention (Sanders 1994) • applicable results (Alkin 2004; World Bank 2008) • no evaluation theory as such (Alkin 2004) • arbitrariness in the choice of criteria and methods (Olejniczak 2008)

5. History of evaluation • mid-19th century: studies on the efficiency of the educational system in Anglo-Saxon countries • 1930s : progress on evaluating the eductional programmes in the USA • 1960s: introduction of federal programmes „Great Society” boosting the evaluation research (Shadish et al. 1991) • 1970s: some European countries start to integrate evaluation in their public managment systems (Bachtler 2008) • 1990s: formal obligation to conduct evaluations of structural programmes deriving from reform of the EU regional policy (Evalsed 2010)

6. Models structuralising the evaluation research 1. a questions/methods-oriented model 2. an improvement/accountability-oriented model 3. a social agenda/advocacy approaches (Stufflebeam et al.2000)

7. PART 2Regional policy paradigms and functional cohesion

8. Shift of paradigms in the EU regional policy Source: OECD 2008

9. Functional approach in polarisation-diffusion model • superior objective of regional policy is to improve the level of socio-economic development • cohesion determines the level of convergence between countries or regions = endeavours to level out differences through stimulation of development processes • concept of three various dimentions of cohesion • classic regional policy dilemma: equality or efficiency ?

10. Economic cohesion „… harmonising the operation of the whole economic system and make possibly full use of the potential of its components” (Gorzelak 2009, p: 14) Functional approach: • creating conditions for development of entrepreneurship • improving investment attractiveness • improving state and structure of business support framework, including development of financial instruments available to enterprises • improving state of infrastructure for enterprises • improving state of infrastructure for agriculture and rural areas • developing tourism and recreation in economic structure • improving innovativeness of business activities • improving productivity of business activities (Churski 2009)

11. Social cohesion … ability of a society to ensure welfare to all its citizens, minimise the disparities among them, and avoid social polarisation. (Karwacki 2009) Functional approach: • improvement of state and structure of human capital • improvement of state and structure of social capital • development and modernisation of municipal infrastructure • improvement of access to human services • improvement of housing conditions • improvement of environment and rational management of natural resources (Churski 2009)

12. Territorial cohesion complementary character, strengthening the economic and social cohesion: a tool and also an effect of achieving economic and social cohesion(European Commission 2007; Churski 2009). Functional approach: • development and modernisation of transport infrastructure • development and modernisation of wireless and Internet communications infrastructure • urban renewal (Churski 2009)

13. PART 3Intraregional divergence of the Wielkopolska region

14. Wielkopolska among other Polish regions Second GDP in Poland -9,3% share in national GDP - av. growth rate (2000-2007) 6,7% Second area in Poland 29 826,51 km2 Third population in Poland 3,39 million people

15. Administrativegovernancein Wielkopolska I. REGIONAL LEVEL Representative of central level: Voivode Regionalself-government: Marshal II. LOCAL LEVEL: 35 poviats 226 communities

16. Territorial differentiation of economic development in Wielkopolska Level of economic development Very high High Average Verylow

17. PART 4Interventions from structural funds in 2004-2006 (programming period)

18. Basic instruments of regional development

19. Integrated Regional Operational Programme (IROP) in Wielkopolska • Funds available for region within 2004-2006 – 196 million € • Share in total allocation for Poland – 7,1% • Financial resources per capita – 58,1 € • III THEMATIC PRIORITIES: I. PRIORITY I:Development and modernisation of infrastructure enhancing the competitiveness of regions (58.6% of funds) II. PRIORITY II: Strengthening human resources development in regions(16.6% of funds) III. PRIORITY III : Local development(24.8% of funds)

20. Territorialdifferentiation of maindirections of support

21. PART 5Empirical analysis of structural funds effectiveness for Wielkopolskain years 2004-2006 (programming period)

22. Objectives of the presentation: • analysis of directions and effectiveness of structural interventions in Wielkopolska, carried out for investments implemented in the years 2004-2006, i.e. during the first period of implementation of EU regional policy in Poland. • an attempt to determine differences in the effectiveness of intervention granted from the EU Structural Funds in shaping the relevant dimensions of cohesion in Wielkopolska voivodeship

23. Steps of analitical procedure STEP 1 • systematisation of Priorities and Measures of the Regional IROP Component 2004-2006 in Wielkopolska according to three dimensions of cohesion – functional approach STEP 2 • selection of two diagnostic measures picturing each of three dimensions (resulting with matrix 3 x 2) : Measure 1- dominating share in the financial inputs Measure 2- exerting the most positive influence on the relevant cohesion in the opinion of authors

24. Steps of analitical procedure STEP 3 • identifying cause-effect mechanism for each diagnostic measure based on the theory of change (Chen 1990), assuming that there are direct, interim and long-term results of each intervention- 2 regression models for each measure Hypothesis: If the direct results of an intervention produce the interim results assumed, and the interim results improve the relevant dimension of cohesion, then the intervention can be judged to contribute to the improvement of the relevant dimension of cohesion, and thus the interim results allow accomplishing the long-term results

25. Economic cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006 Measure by input volume : 1.4 Development of tourism and culture Share of available funding: 8.9% Total value of projects:25.8 million EUR Total number of projects: 18 No of observations: 6 Direct results: no of overnight visitors, international toursits, local spendings on culture and preservation of national heritage etc. Interim result: employees of firms in H sector (hotels and restaurants) Long-term result: value of communes’ own incomes No intervention Intervention

26. Economic cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006 Measure by highest assumedinfluence on cohesion: 3.4 Micro-enterprises Share of available funding: 1,1% Total value of projects: 7.8. million EUR Total number of projects: 156 No of observations: 65 Direct results: no of micro-entreprises,no of employees of micro-entreprises Interim result/long-term result: value of communes' own incomes No intervention Intervention

27. Economic cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006

28. Social cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006 Measure by input volume : 1.2 Environmental protection infrastructure Share of available funding:12.2% Total value of projects:38 million Total number of projects: 19 No of observations: 17 Direct result: length of sewage network Interim result: connections to sanitary sewage system Long-term result: share of unemployed persons in total number of persons of working age No intervention Intervention

29. Social cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006 Measure by highest assumedinfluence on cohesion 3.5.1Local sports and educational infrastructure Share of available funding:4% Total value of projects: Total number of projects: 14 No of observations: 11 Direct results:places available in kindergartens, graduates of primary and secondary schools etc. Interim result:net school enrolment index No intervention Intervention

30. Social cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006

31. Territorialcohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska inyears 2004-2006 Measure by input volume/ Measure by highest assumedinfluence on cohesion : 1.1.1 Road infrastructure Share of available funding:12.2% Total value of projects:38 million Total number of projects: 19 No of observations: 17 Direct results: length of poviat dirt roads, number of car accidents Interim result: volume of investment spending of poviats on transport and communication

32. Territorial cohesion-analysis of effectiveness for Wielkopolska in years 2004-2006

33. PART 6Conclusions

34. CONCLUSIONS • The absence of statistical dataat the local level creates a barrier to objective assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of regional policy measures implemented in Poland . • The range of the available secondary data prevents the use of the presented method relying on a quasi-experimental design and the difference-in-differences technique- tools strongly recommended for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of cohesion policy after 2013 (Morton 2009). • Research should be continued relying on three assumptions: 3.1 Secondary data should be complemented with primary data; 3.2 Research should be continued in the years to come due to a chance of capturing the influence of direct and interim results of intervention on its long-term results; 3.3 Similar research should be conducted for the population of all spatial units in Poland - statistical deficiencies exposed in the analysis could have resulted from too small a size of the sample of units

35. Thankyou for yourattention! Prof. Paweł Churski chur@amu.edu.pl Anna Borowczak –PhD Candidate aborowcz@amu.edu.pl