Search results

European Union Cohesion Policy (CP ) creates the basis for long-term sustainable development and provides a very significant financial resource in many EU countries. In many disadvantaged regions CP funds have became a main tool supporting implementation of regional development policy. Binding regional policy with long-term CP goals limits however the flexibility of regions in taking measures that go beyond those approved by European Commission within operational programs. In consequence, it can prevent regional authorities from adequate reaction to challenges occurring in the short-term perspective. This paper focuses on the role of CP in responding to short-term problems such as those resulting from the latest financial and economic crisis. The hypothesis on whether the CP management and implementation systems of Regional Operational Programs (ROPs ) remain unchanged in face of short-term disturbances is verified. Our study confirmed the predominantly long-term orientation of CP, as the deterioration of the economic situation in two studied regions did not bring any significant changes related to the main goals, objectives or funds allocation. However, the two case studies proved that regions undertook special actions and implemented projects focused on resolving short-term problems and challenges in the 2007–2013 period.

Pomimo mnogości prowadzonych badań i analiz ich faktyczne wykorzystanie w projektowaniu i wdrażaniu polityki publicznej jest dość ograniczone. Najnowsze badania wskazują, że skuteczną strategią wzmacniania wykorzystania wyników badań w praktyce polityki publicznej jest brokering wiedzy. Artykuł przedstawia użycie innowacji dydaktycznej umożliwiającej nauczanie brokeringu wiedzy poprzez praktykę – za pomocą szkolenia opartego na grze symulacyjnej. Dotychczasowe doświadczenia z zastosowania gry Brokerzy wiedzy do nauczania analityków polityki publicznej z Polski, Stanów Zjednoczonych i Kanady potwierdzają, że gra pomaga w: (1) zrozumieniu roli wyników badań i analiz w polityce publicznej, (2) opanowaniu sześciu kluczowych umiejętności brokera wiedzy oraz (3) zrozumieniu ograniczeń brokera we wpływaniu na procesy decyzyjne. Instytucje administracji publicznej mogą wykorzystać Brokerów wiedzy do praktycznego kształcenia swoich kadr analitycznych i podnoszenia swojego organizacyjnego potencjału do prowadzenia polityki publicznej opartej na dowodach.

Despite the plethora of conducted research and analyses, their actual use in the design and implementation of public policies is quite limited. The latest research indicates that an effective strategy to strengthen the use of public policy research results in practice is knowledge brokering. The article demonstrates the use of an educational innovation enabling knowledge brokering teaching through practice - by means of a simulation game-based workshop. The past experience connected with the use of "Knowledge 176 Karol Olejniczak, Dominika Wojtowicz Studia z Polityki Publicznej Brokers" game to teach public sector professionals in Poland, the United States and Canada has confirmed that the game helps to: (1) understand the role of the public policy research and analysis results, (2) master the six key skills of knowledge brokers and (3) understand the broker's limitations in influencing the decision-making process. Public administration institutions can make use of "Knowledge Brokers" for the practical training of their analytical personnel and raising its organizational capacity to carry out public policies based on evidence.

Effectiveness of implemented under the EU cohesion policy measures has become a significant issue. The relevance of the topic is undeniable, given the ongoing discussion of the results of public interventions conducted at the EU level and the resulting concept of an integrated approach to study the effects of actions undertaken within the cohesion policy. Based on various studies conducted to date, the authors argue that the effectiveness of the funds targeted to Polish regions could be greater if more care was focused on complementarity among the undertaken actions. The paper concentrates on issues related to complementarity between programs and projects implemented under EU Cohesion Policy in regional level Poland. Case study of one of Polish region - namely, Łodzkie - shows that adopted methods and tool, which should provide complementarity do not work in a proper way. The results suggest the existence of severe restrictions when it comes to assessing the actual intensity of complementarity and the resulting synergy effects. As both the analyses of documentation and the comments of participants during in-depth interviews indicate that the complementarity of projects is misunderstood or deliberately distorted (so that the highest score during the application stage can be obtained), it can be stated that the scale of complementarity is far from satisfactory. Conducted research enabled the authors to elaborate conclusions and recommendation on what solutions should be taken into account in aim to improve implementation of complementarity concept in the next financial perspective for years 2014-2020. ; samorząd województwa łódzkiego ; Tomasz Kupiec

For many European Union (EU) member states, the Cohesion Policy (CP) was the channel through which the practice of evaluation was transmitted into domestic administration. Studies have shown that the EU member countries differ in terms of their evaluation capacity and activity. None of those studies, however, addresses regional governments, which are important actors in CP management systems. Our article presents the first cross-state comparative study on the evaluation activity and use by regional authorities in Poland and Spain. We explain the observed differences in evaluation using the concept of internal propensity and external pressure on evaluation, which in the case of regions, is imposed by the EU as well as national authorities.

La pratique de l'évaluation est essentielle pour la responsabilisation et l'apprentissage des administrations qui mettent en œuvre des politiques complexes. Cet article explore les relations entre les structures des systèmes d'évaluation et leurs fonctions. Les conclusions sont basées sur une analyse comparative de six systèmes nationaux chargés d'évaluer la politique de cohésion de l'Union européenne. L'étude identifie trois types de structures de système d'évaluation : centralisées avec une seule unité d'évaluation, décentralisées avec un organe de coordination et décentralisées sans organe de coordination. Ces systèmes diffèrent en termes d'orientation thématique des évaluations et d'utilisateurs ciblés. Les systèmes décentralisés se concentrent sur les utilisateurs internes des connaissances et produisent principalement des études opérationnelles ; leur fonction principale est l'apprentissage orienté vers l'intérieur pour une mise en œuvre harmonieuse du programme. Les systèmes centralisés remplissent une fonction plus stratégique, et tiennent compte du public externe et de la responsabilité externe des effets. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les praticiens qui conçoivent des systèmes d'évaluation multi-organisationnels doivent garder à l'esprit que leur structure et leurs fonctions sont interdépendantes. Si l'on vise à la fois l'imputabilité et l'apprentissage, le système d'évaluation a besoin d'un degré minimum de décentralisation d'une part, et de la présence d'un organe de coordination actif et indépendant d'autre part.

Evaluation practice is vital for the accountability and learning of administrations implementing complex policies. This article explores the relationships between the structures of the evaluation systems and their functions. The findings are based on a comparative analysis of six national systems executing evaluation of the European Union Cohesion Policy. The study identifies three types of evaluation system structure: centralized with a single evaluation unit, decentralized with a coordinating body and decentralized without a coordinating body. These systems differ in terms of the thematic focus of evaluations and the targeted users. Decentralized systems focus on internal users of knowledge and produce mostly operational studies; their primary function is inward-oriented learning about smooth programme implementation. Centralized systems fulfil a more strategic function, recognizing the external audience and external accountability for effects.Points for practitionersPractitioners who design multi-organizational evaluation systems should bear in mind that their structure and functions are interrelated. If both accountability and learning are desired, the evaluation system needs at least a minimum degree of decentralization on the one hand and the presence of an active and independent coordination body on the other.