1. Feedback on the Evaluation Experiences during Implementation Ignác Siba National Development Agency, Hungary

2. Ex-ante vs. Ex-post evaluations Ex-anteEx-ante – designing programs to achieve optimal results, – maximizing / predicting impact for a given goal (national priorities for development, strategy papers) – stronger assumptions are required, – helps to avoid high costs of implementing programs that can be later found ineffective Ex-postEx-post – most program evaluation focus on ex-post evaluation of existing programs, – ex-post evaluations are more reliable for estimation of treating impacts of an existing program, STILL there is a critical role for ex- ante evaluation tools Where there is a program already in place (ECOP EDP) ex- ante evaluation methods can be used to study how the impacts would change if some parameters of the program are altered!

3. I. Evaluation and experiences of ECOP 1.3.1 Scoring based on the following measures: MeasureMaximum scoreMeasurable Number of years in business5Yes Proportion of income from export activity6Yes Own capital proportional to own resource8Yes Net income proportional to own resource8Yes Invested equipment proportional to own resource8Yes Employment proportional to project value12No Value added per person8Yes Innovation potential30Partially Connection to New Szechenyi Plan priority points5No Economical sustainability5No Equal opportunities5No Total10049 If measurable 1 is indicated

4. Evaluation based on size of business 20 000 companies receiving 35+ point on scoring – based on size of business There is a much higher proportion of small and medium businesses within the program in accordance with the priorities of strategies of development in place. If applicant 1 is indicated

5. Scoring according to size of business - Small and medium businesses Highlighting scoring results of small and medium business, most companies fall within the 37-43 points range, not showing significant difference between applicant and non-applicant companies.

6. Scoring according to size of business - Micro and large businesses In case of micro businesses it is obvious that most of the businesses can achieve 37 points on scoring. Large companies show an interesting picture, also because large number of applicant companies score higher than non applicants. It can be seen that with altering scoring requirements and methods, specific type of businesses may be involved in a program in accordance with strategies in place.

7. Evaluation based on industry Nationwide 8,7% of all companies are in processing business and of all applicant businesses 14,5% are in this industry. Also, 23,7% of trading companies and 23,3% are among the applicants of ECOP program.

8. Regional disparities While observing regional disparities, in given regions there is a high proportion of applicants, namely in South-Great Plain and North-Great Plain region, which are convergence regions. Central Hungary is not a convergence region despite the high number of applicants, but one must consider the special set up of the country according to which most companies are located within this region.

9. II. Economic Competitiveness Operational Programme (2004-2006) Evaluations ECOP 2.1.1 The most popular call for application for SME investment Main results (4 call s for application in 3 years): Purchase of equipments, licence and know-how, property construction and renovation Maximum grant 25 Mn HUF (~100 000 ) Private contribution min. 50% ~9000 applicants ~3500 beneficiaries, Grant approved 42 Bn HUF (~155 Mn ) 12 Mn HUF (~45 000 ) average grant 32 Mn HUF (~117 000 ) average project cost

10. ECOP Evaluations – ECOP 2.1.1 138,3 m EUR 348,7 m EUR 115,7 m EUR 136,2 m EUR 154,2 m EUR Exchange rate: 272,42 HUF/Euro Very popular call, targeting SME investments

11. Revenues of Applicant vs. non-applicant companies Observing changes in revenues, applicant companies revenues grew significantly more than non- applicant companies. Growth of revenues of companies within the ECOP 2.1.1 program simultaneously follow the patter of non-applicant companies.

12. Costs of wage of Applicant vs. non-applicant companies Observing growth in costs of wages, applicant companies wage costs grew significantly more than non-applicant companies. Growth of revenues of companies within the ECOP 2.1.1 program show a great increase.

13. Assets of Applicant vs. non-applicant companies A parallel growth may be observed in all three groups, while greatest growth can be seen among the applicants of ECOP 2.1.1. due to the nature of the program.

14. Return of Applicant vs. non-applicant companies The effects of crisis may be observed greatly among all groups, mostly among the applicants.

15. Evaluations – ECOP 2.1.1 – Key findings: typically supported - domestic SMEs previously realised investments/ forward brought investments the grant supported 30% additional private inves t ment growth impacts could not be explicitly demonstrated over the monitored period, i.e. in spite of additional investments enterprises were not capable of significantly increasing sales employment showed an increase among assisted companies

16. Thank you for your attention!