Suchergebnisse

The sovereign debt crisis induced a wide array of new institutions to reinforce European economic governance. The budget of the European member states is now subject of the European semester, which is part of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact as codified by and backed-up by the so-called Six-Pack and Two-Pack and backed by the Fiscal Compact that enable the Commission to issue, inter alia, country-specific recommendations before the budget is submitted to national parliaments. The country-specific recommendations are not binding, but will be hard to ignore by the member states in the long run unless the economy recovers. In this paper we are going to look at the efforts of the European Union to reinforce European fiscal governance, i.e. the coordination of the budgetary policy of the member states. More precisely, we will address the progress of the member states towards their Medium-Term Budgetary Objective as measured by the structural balance and Expenditure Benchmark as well as the implementation of the Country-Specific Recommendations in the field of fiscal policy, which are further strengthened by the Fiscal Compact by which the member states – with the exception of the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom – commit themselves to fiscal discipline, coordination and governance. The paper is geared to the assessment the country-specific recommendations in terms of goal-attainment and effectiveness and aims, by such, to deliver a contribution to the body of knowledge on European economic governance and fiscal consolidation.

The last few decades a revival of the performance budgeting generating a complete performance industry. Initiated by the Anglo-Saxon countries, notably New Zealand, the performance movement is widespread today. In this paper we focus on the efforts of the three European countries - Finland, the Netherlands and Spain - to link inputs to outputs and/or the results by looking at three questions: " What is the rationale for budgetary reform? " What is the orientation of budgetary reform: outputs or results? " Is budgetary reform successful? Fiscal stress is a key driver in all cases, but not the only reason for budgetary reform. Other factors such as the Maastricht criteria for qualification and participation in the EMU have served as a trigger for budgetary reform. The approach differs from country to country, but they are all focused on the performance informed budgeting. Besides, the latest developments point in the direction of a more down to earth attitude to the expectations of budgetary reform. The success of budgetary reform hinges on the quality of performance information that is assumed a necessary but not sufficient condition for the use of performance information. All complain about the quality of performance information. Moreover, they all struggle with the link of the inputs to the outputs or results that makes us conclude, addressing the question that we raised in the subtitle of our paper, that the ends do not justify - neither moral nor empirical - the means as well as resources.

Times of crisis, such as the financial and economic crisis and, more recently, the migration crisis, open windows of opportunity for agenda setting and policy change. However, the added value of policy analysis and utilization‐focused evaluation is often more contested during crises: do crises provide opportunities for the utilization of expert knowledge and policy learning in order to punctuate policy deadlocks and to induce policy innovation or do crises rather inhibit opportunities for the utilization of expert knowledge and policy learning because of political contestation and establishment of a clear political primacy? Building on empirical data drawn from the Dutch comprehensive spending reviews (2010), advisory reports and policy studies, respectively, in the field of the Dutch migration and integration policy (2000–2015), we found that the utilization of expert knowledge is not much different in bad times than in good times. Rather, the type of expert knowledge as well as the way of utilization of expert knowledge is subject to change as boundary organizations are playing a key role as producers of expert knowledge in legitimating policy actors and structures and substantiating policy decisions. We conclude that expert knowledge may be a very important and powerful tool for policy coordination, precisely in the highly contested and politicized setting of a crisis.

This comprehensive study, part of the International Library of Policy Analysis, edited by Iris Geva-May and Michael Howlett, brings together for the first time a systemic overview of policy analysis activities in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is internationally regarded as one of the front-runners of policy analysis and evaluation in Europe. This book provides a much-needed overview of developments in policy analysis in both academia and practice at various levels of governance. It brings together contributions from key scholars as well as from professionals in the field. The book captures the diversity of modes of policy analysis which have evolved since the 1970s. Above all, it provides an overview of the current state of affairs and is, as such, suitable for anyone who is interested in governance and performance. Features of the ILPA series include: • a systematic study of policy analysis systems by government and non-governmental actors • a history of the country's policy analysis, empirical case studies and a comparative overview • a key reference collection for research and teaching in comparative policy analysis and policy studies