scholarly journals Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies

2009 ◽  
Vol 101 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 427-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constanze Haug ◽  
Tim Rayner ◽  
Andrew Jordan ◽  
Roger Hildingsson ◽  
Johannes Stripple ◽  
...  
Evaluation ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Schoenefeld ◽  
Andrew Jordan

As policy evaluation matures, thoughts are turning to its governance. However, few scholars have combined insights from the evaluation and governance literatures to shed new light on this matter. In order to address this important gap, this article develops a new typology of ways to comprehend and perhaps ultimately govern ex-post policy evaluation activities. The article then explores its validity in the context of climate policy evaluation activities, a vibrant policy area in which the demand for and practices of evaluation have grown fast, particularly in Europe. The analysis reveals that the typology usefully guides new thinking, but also highlights important gaps in our empirical knowledge of the various modes of governing policy evaluation. The article identifies a need for a new research agenda that simultaneously develops a fuller understanding of these evaluation practices and the options for governing them.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 89-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariësse A.E. van Sluisveld ◽  
Andries F. Hof ◽  
Detlef P. van Vuuren ◽  
Pieter Boot ◽  
Patrick Criqui ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Songphan Choemprayong

One of the objectives of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is to promote scientific and research collaboration in order to raise the level of competitiveness in Southeast Asia. Bibliometrics can play an important role in informing science and scholarship policy evaluation and recommendations in this region. Bibliometric researchers have been observing scholarly activities in this region since the 1980s. However, the number of scholarly publications in this region has been relatively low compared to the rest of the world. Most of these bibliometric studies focus on benchmarking research performance between these countries, although they vary in many regards, for instance, in the countries/regions of interest, data sources, and analytical techniques. Evaluation studies of collaboration within this region are evidently rare and mostly focus on collaborations with non-ASEAN countries. By connecting the results of these studies through different periods and methodological perspectives, this chapter discusses the challenges and knowledge gaps in this research area in order to identify potential research topics and approaches for future studies.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronika Stolbova ◽  
Irene Monasterolo ◽  
Stefano Battiston

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanny Bressers ◽  
Mark van Twist ◽  
Ernst ten Heuvelhof

foresight ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Szkuta ◽  
Blagoy Stamenov ◽  
Paul Cunningham

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the impact of public support through equity instruments on firm performance, as measured by growth in employment, turnover and innovative activities. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on available academic literature and policy evaluation studies and using a mixed-method approach based on evaluation synthesis. Findings The key findings reflect positive, albeit quantifiably small, outcomes for this type of policy intervention for employment and turnover and no effect on innovation. There is some concentration of positive results, which is also dependent on the number and quality of the available target companies. Research limitations/implications The evaluations used in this study vary considerably in their design, nature and the input and output variables used and, thus, limit a robust comparison of their outputs. Most of the evaluations examined in this paper did not control for multiple simultaneous treatment effects and/or subsequent funding rounds. Practical implications The evaluations are rarely designed to compare the treatment effects of alternative policy choices. Only seldom is an evaluation designed to assess the impact of the scheme in the context of the broader policy mix (with its framework conditions, etc.) which would provide more fine-grained policy implications. Originality/value The recent literature (Duruflé et al., 2017, Da Rin et al., 2011) highlights the dearth of studies exploring the role of government policies supporting venture and, more broadly, equity investments beyond comparisons of the efficiency of independent venture capital and government-backed venture capital. Most studies explore the impact in terms of exits, initial public offering and leverage effects whereas fewer studies look at output effects on companies such as turnover and employment growth. The paper aims to collect the existing evidence including less analysed policy evaluation studies and draw lessons for public policy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
pp. 239-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronika Stolbova ◽  
Irene Monasterolo ◽  
Stefano Battiston

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valérie Pattyn ◽  
Bart De Peuter ◽  
Marleen Brans

AbstractPolicy evaluations can be set up for multiple purposes including accountability, policy learning and policy planning. The question is, however, how these purposes square with politics itself. To date, there is little knowledge on how government ministers present the rationale of evaluations. This article is the first to provide a diachronic study of discourse about evaluation purposes and encompass a wide range of policy fields. We present an analysis of evaluation announcements in so-called ministerial policy notes issued between 1999 and 2019 by the Flemish government in Belgium. The research fine-tunes available evidence on catalysts for conducting evaluations. The Flemish public sector turns out to be a strong case where New Public Management brought policy evaluation onto the agenda, but this has not resulted in a prominent focus on accountability-oriented evaluations. We further show that policy fields display different evaluation cultures, albeit more in terms of the volume of evaluation demand than in terms of preferences for particular evaluation purposes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document