Current Knowledge Gaps and Research Methodology Problems in Impact Evaluation of Structural and Cohesion Funds Across the European Union





The impact assessment of public policies of all levels in general and community funding in particular is a relatively new sector involving both theoreticians in economics, econometrics, statistics, finance, mathematics, socio-human sciences, political sciences, geography, etc., as well as practitioners from public or private institutions. In this article the author tried to determine what knowledge gaps and research methodology problems exist in the field of impact evaluation of Structural and Cohesion funds, as it was demonstrated that community investments do not necessarily generate visible benefits at local level. Certainly, there is plausible research in the field of such community financing, since from the pre-accession to the post-accession programming periods, in the vast majority of EU Member States, it was reiterated that the impact of these funds on the national economies was not conceptualized. This was mostly due to the fact that the effects on the potential beneficiaries were not identified in real terms, in both macroeconomic and microeconomic perspectives.

  • Becker S., Egger P., Ehrlich M. 2016. “Effects of EU regional policy: 1989–2013”, CAGE Discussion Paper, No. 271.
  • Becker S., Egger P., Ehrlich M. 2010a. “Going NUTS: Th e eff ect of EU Funds on regional performance”. Journal of Public Economics, 578–590.
  • Becker S., Egger P., Ehrlich M. 2010b. “Too much of a good thing? On the growth effects of the EU’s regional policy”. Journal of Public Economics.
  • Bradley J., Mitze Ti., Morgenroth E., Untiedt G. 2005. An integrated Micro-Macro (IMM) approach to the evaluation of large-scale public investment programmes: the case of EU Structural Funds. Munster.
  • Cameron D., Mishra A., Brown A. 2016. „The growth of impact evaluation for international development: how much have we learned?”, Journal of Development Eff ectiveness, Vol. 8, No. 1: 1–21.
  • Centre for European Policy Studies 2014. What are the eff ects of the EU budget: driving force or drop in the ocean. Brussels.
  • Centre for Research on Impact Evaluation 2014. Knowledge gaps in evaluating labour market and social inclusion policies. Use of counterfactual impact evaluation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Ciffolilli A., Condello S., Pompili M., Roemisch R., (2015) Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2007–2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF). Brussels: European Commission.
  • Dabrowski M. 2015. „Doing more with less or doing less with less? Assessing EU cohesion policy financial instruments for urban development”. Regional Studies, Regional Science, Vol. 2.
  • Department for International Development 2012. Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. United Kingdom.
  • Dumciuviene D., Stundziene A., Startiene G. 2015. „Relationship between Structural funds and economic indicators of the European Union”. Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering Economics, No. 26(5): 507–516.
  • Ederveen S., Gorter J., De Mooj R., Nahuis R. 2002. Funds and Games. The Economics of European Cohesion Policy. Netherlands.
  • European Commission 2016a. Measuring the impact of Structural and Cohesion Funds using the regression discontinuity design. Luxembourg.
  • European Commission 2016b. The impact of cohesion policy 2007–2013: model simulation with QUEST III, Luxembourg.
  • European Commission 2016c. Macro-economic eff ects of cohesion policy funding in 2007–2013. Executive summary, Luxembourg.
  • European Territorial Observatory Network, 2005. The territorial eff ects of the Structural Funds.
  • Garbarino S., Holland J. 2009. Quantitative and qualitative methods in impact evaluation and measuring results. United Kingdom.
  • Gertler P., Martinez S., Premand P., Rawlings L., Vermersch Ch., 2016. Impact Evaluation in Practice – Second Edition. Washington DC: World Bank/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
  • Hagen T., Mohl P. 2009. „Which is the right dose of EU Cohesion Policy for economic growth?”. Discussion Paper 09.
  • Iacovoiu V. 2006. „The role of pre-accession funds in the Romanian economy”. Buletinul Univ. Petrol-Gaze Ploiești, Șt. Ec., Vol. LVIII, No. 2: 65–70.
  • Idu P. 2006. „Structural instruments and the convergence of states in the European Union”. OEconomica, No. 3.
  • Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, Institut de Govern i Politiques Publiques 2011. Study on the contribution of local development in delivering interventions co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund in the periods 2000-06 and 2007-13.
  • Jureviciene D., Pileckaite J. 2013. „The impact of EU Structural Funds support and problems of its absorption”. Business, Management and Education, 1–18.
  • Marzinotto B. 2012. „The growth eff ects of EU Cohesion Policy: a meta-analysis”, Bruegel Working Paper.
  • Montresor E., Pecci F., Pontarollo N. 2010. „The evaluation of european Structural Funds on economic convergence with the application of spatial filtering technique”. Working Papers Series – University of Verona, Department of Economics.
  • Montresor E., Pecci F., Pontarollo N. 2011. “The convergence process of the European regions: the role of Regional Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy”. Studies in Agricultural Economics, No. 113: 167–177.
  • Morris S., Todtling H., Wiseman M. 2013. Design and commissioning of counterfactual impact evaluations. A practical guidance for ESF Managing Authorities. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientifi c Research, 2008. Study on the system of regional models for impact assessment of EU Cohesion Policy.
  • Panagiotis A. 2014. “Local versus regime convergence regression models: a comparison of two approaches”. GeoJournal, No. 80: 263–277.
  • Percoco M., Gagliardi L., 2016. “Th e impact of European cohesion policy in urban and rural regions: a regression discontinuity approach”. Regional Studies.
  • Percoco M. 2017. “Impact of European cohesion policy on regional growth: does local economic structure matter”. Regional Studies: 833–843.
  • Petropoulos S. 2013. “Evaluation of the European Structural Funds. A historical perspective”. Th e Jean Monnet Papers on Political Economy, No. 4.
  • Popescu F-A., Berinde M. 2016a. “Th eoretical aspects regarding Structural and Cohesion Funds impact evaluation methodology”, Annals of the University of Oradea – Economic Sciences, TOM XXV, No. 2: 106–116.
  • Popescu F.-A. 2016b. “Researches regarding the dimension and relevance of European funding in Bihor county”, Emerging markets economics and business. Contributions of young researchers, No. 4, University of Oradea Press: 141–145.
  • Popescu F.-A. 2016c. “Bihor county: economy evolution, development strategies and European Funds perspective”, Emerging markets economics and business. Contributions of young researchers, No. 4, University of Oradea Press: 146–150.
  • Popescu F.-A., Berinde M., 2017a. “Analysis regarding the instruments for impact evaluation of European Funds across practitioners”, Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Sciences Series, TOM XXVI, University of Oradea Press: 691–696.
  • Popescu F.-A., Benea C.-B. 2017b. „Do European funds consultancy market’ extensions determine Romanian economic growth or vice versa?”, Emerging Markets Economics and Business. Contributions of young researchers, No. 5, University of Oradea Press: 110–113.
  • Popescu, F.-A. 2018. “Th e impact of Structural and Cohesion funds on the economy of Bihor county during 2007–2013 programming period”, Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 3, Special Issue, University of Oradea Press: 74–83.
  • Puigerver-Penalver M.-C. 2007. “Th e impact of Structural Funds policy on European regions’ growth. A theoretical and empirical approach”. Th e European Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2: 179–208.
  • Sartori D., Catalono G., Genco M., Pancotti Ch., Sirtori E., Vignetti S., Del Bo Ch., 2014. Guide to cost-benefi t analysis of investment projects. Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion policy 2014–2020. Brussels: European Commission.
  • Tavistock Institute, 2003. Th e evaluation of socio-economic development. Th e guide. London.
  • Tomova M., Rezessy A., Lenkowsky A., Maincent E. 2013. “EU governance and EU funds – testing the eff ectiveness of EU funds in a sound macroeconomic framework”. Economic Papers 510.
  • Varga J., in ‘t Veld J. 2009. A model-based assessment of the macroconomic impact of EU Structural Funds on the New Member States. Brussels: European Commission.
  • Varga J., in ‘t Veld J. 2010. The potential impact of EU Cohesion Policy spending in the 2007–13 programming period: a model-based analysis. Brussels: European Commission.
  • Vasary M., Toth J.B., Baranyai Z., Takacs I., Takacs-Gyorgy K. 2013. “Macroeconomic trends by the use of Structural Funds”. Zarządzanie Publiczne, Vol. 4, No. 24: 491–504.