1. EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Impact evaluation: some introductory words Daniel Mouqué Evaluation unit, DG REGIO Brussels, November 2008

2. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 2 Traditional tools include: Quantitative data, used descriptively: –Expenditure –Outputs (60% of indicators) –Results (eg jobs created) usually gross Qualitative methods (description, expert opinions, surveys) Macro-models – model, do not measure (« generic » actions, eg road building) Havent we always measured impact?

3. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 3 Observation, Description, Expert opinions… … all essential scientific methods, but…

4. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 4 Another essential scientific tool: comparison with control group Think drug trial A B C D

5. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 5 1.« Experimental » ie random selection of who to treat: potentially difficult 2.« Quasi-experimental » methods: Difference-in-difference Matching (eg by observed similarities) Where do you find your control group?

6. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 6 Strengths – rigour, quantification Weaknesses – establishing a control group, the black box problem => Suitable for discrete interventions with lots of units (eg aid to individuals, enterprises), not whole programmes or infrastructure => Tells you what/how much – combine with realistic evaluation for why/how? Strengths, weaknesses & applications

7. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 7 Accountability & public money – our duty to use all the tools available Convincing evidence for limited budgets Goal theory – those who are serious, measure progress Why impact evaluation, comparison/control groups?

8. Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation 2007 -13 8 In sum – one of several essential tools