1 / 16

Feedback on the Evaluation Experiences during Implementation

Feedback on the Evaluation Experiences during Implementation. Ignác Siba National Development Agency, Hungary. Ex-ante vs. Ex-post evaluations. Ex-post most program evaluation focus on ex-post evaluation of existing programs,

dstoudt
Download Presentation

Feedback on the Evaluation Experiences during Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Ex-ante vs. Ex-post evaluations • Ex-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 Ex-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 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: 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 ECOP2.1.1 • The most popular call for application for SME investment • Main results (4 calls 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 Very popular call, targeting SME investments 348,7 m EUR 154,2m EUR 136,2 m EUR 138,3 m EUR 115,7 m EUR Exchange rate: 272,42 HUF/Euro

  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 ofApplicant 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 ofApplicant 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 investment • 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!

More Related