assessment of regional coordination capacities szepesi balázs lead evaluator workshop on...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessment of Regional Coordination Capacities
Szepesi BalázsLead Evaluator
Workshop on introducing territorial development evaluations
April 25, 2013
Table of Content
• Goals, tasks, methods of the assessment
• Results
• Principles
• Recommendations
2
Goals of the Assessment
3
Our goal is to propose suggestions to improve territorial coordination in utilization of Cohesion Policy Funds.
Examining the recent practice concerning the coordination of development projects.
Summarizing the experiences of stakeholders.
assessing the challenges posed by the change of the national and EU regulations
Tasks of the Assessment
4
Methods
5
• 3 case studies• Delphi: 35 participants in
the first round, 27 participants in the second one
• 20 expert interviews• 71 projects analyzed• 19 basic policy documents
analyzed
Findings #1Testing hypotheses
• insufficient territorial coordination
• restructuring the institutional background of territorial coordination
• conflicts amongst the institutional agents of territorial coordination (county level, local and sectoral actors)
• The importance of competitiveness increases, while the importance of welfare decreases in local development strategies
• The importance of safety increases: more emphasis is put on projects improving the performance and cost efficiency
6
Findings #2The logics of the coordinating system
• Goals defining mechanisms of territorial coordination:– allocation of funds through competition;– division of labour between actors of the institutional
system of development policy;– subsidizing less advanced micro-regions.
• the system of development policy is centralized: goals, means, execution, and decision-making are articulated at government level;
• coordination mechanisms cover mainly the functioning of the distribution of funds;
• sectoral developments are weakly harmonized;
• informal bargaining and mechanisms are of great importance.
7
Findigs #3 Operation of the coordination system
• Local stakeholoders did not attempt to build up influence on the institutional system;
• Actors had weak interest to cooperate in project design or application;
• Abundance of funding resulted in the fact that most applicants succeeded in receiving grants;
• The need to harmonize the instruments of local development (IUD, LAMR) was perceived as an obligatory external expectation;
• The restructuring of the administrative system diminishes the quasi-deconcentrated nature of local authorities and enhances their role in managing the local community.
8
Suggestions for Principles
– development is not the target but the instrument;
– coordination of the goals and means of cohesion policy with the framework of the restructured national administration;
– development effects through the transformation of the circumstances and the incentives of the actions;
– efforts for development at national level can be successful if they are realistic, predictable, simple, and inspirational;
– efforts for development are evaluated on their outcomes which are feasible and which were realized;
– the state is not supposed to be the subject but the supporter of the innovation.
9
Suggestions #1
1. The main factor of successful coordination among various regional actors is the exact division and definition of responsibilities, resources and developmental focuses.
2. The capacity building hubs necessary for the functioning of the regional coordination are to be based (1) on the assignment of the agents of development policy and (2) on the definition of their instruments and their tasks.
3. Competencies for initiating and organizing local development activities can be regarded local if regional actors are able to provide the necessary financial and organizational capacities.
4. It is important to cut the red tape in the contemporary system. Proposal writing and project management companies shall have an important role during the creation of a more realistic, predictable framework for development policy with less administrative costs.
10
Suggestions #2
5. Risks of the radical transformation of development policy can be mitigated: during decision-making it is highly recommended to define the goals, main principles, institutions and functioning of development policy; including those components and principles which shall be overcome.
6. It is the responsibility of the central government to articulate and enforce territorial targets at national level and in sectoral policies as well as to harmonize national developments from spatial aspects.
7. County authorities shall act as the coordinator of developments, i.e. by supporting the activities of CLLDs.
8. Cities and regional centres have important function in organizing the economy and in lobbying; consequently they remain the beneficiaries of development policy with a special status.
11
Suggestions #3
9. There are two possible roles for CLLDs: to become the continuation of LEADER or the framework for local (not for city) developments. In case of the latter option, this instrument could become the framework of the local economic and social development.
10. The role of ITIs is the integration of multi-sectoral development at local level, primarily in the field of urban developments. Possible functions:– the coordination of developments in bigger cities
including their neighbourhood;– coordination of developments of smaller cities,
urban groups and their neighbourhood;– framing of local development programmes
coordinated at county level.
12
