1 / 22

Milic B. B.1, Bogdanov N.2, Heijman W.1

The “Rural-Sensitive Evaluation Model” for evaluation of local governments’ sensitivity to rural issues in Serbia. Milic B. B.1, Bogdanov N.2, Heijman W.1 1 Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity / Department of Social Sciences, Economic of Consumers and Household Groups, Wageningen, Netherlands

seven
Download Presentation

Milic B. B.1, Bogdanov N.2, Heijman W.1

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. The “Rural-Sensitive Evaluation Model” for evaluation of local governments’ sensitivity to rural issues in Serbia Milic B. B.1, Bogdanov N.2, Heijman W.1 1 Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity / Department of Social Sciences, Economic of Consumers and Household Groups, Wageningen, Netherlands 2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade / Department of agricultural economy, Belgrade, Serbia 122nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar Evidence-Based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation February 17th – 18th, 2011, Ancona (Italy) Centro Studi Sulle Politiche Economiche, Rurali e Ambientali associazioneAlessandroBartolastudi e ricerche di economia e di politica agraria Università Politecnica delle Marche

  2. LIST OF CONTENTS • INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES • THEORETICAL BACKGROUND • CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE RSEM • THE SCORING SYSTEM IN THE MRSI • THE METHODS OF RSEM’s USE • DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES

  3. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES The paper hypothesis: “If the problems of rural communities and the actions taken by local decision makers to resolve these problems are identified, than rural “welfare” will be improved”. Focus of the paper: Depiction of the methodology for assessing how municipal administration works to promote wider rural development objectives - “RSEM”. • What is the RSEM? A new, specific way of measuring changes referring to rural development and its position in local governance. Sensitivityin the context of this model is observed through: actions, attitudes, and estimated effects. • What is the base of the RSEM ? Key features of the LEADER approach. • What is the rational for the RSEM?

  4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND • Group of works (scientific papers and political documents) related to the new approach to endogenous development & partnership between governments and other stakeholders in the processes of local development. • Integrated rural development • New Public Management • The New Rural Governance • The LEADER approach • Examples from other countries regarding the models • Rural Proofing concept •  Other institutional assessment models

  5. THEORETHICAL BACKGROUND - LEADER Vs RSEM

  6. CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE RSEM

  7. THE SCORING SYSTEMDepiction of the IA III scoring system

  8. THE SCORING SYSTEM Municipal Rural – Sensitive Index (MRSI) = 100 MRSI=∑ MaxP IA’s(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

  9. THE METHODS OF USE • Application of the RSEM involves three key steps: • Assessment of the current situation in local communities. • Questionnaires • Semi structured interviews • Focus groups • Observations of information gathered by assessment from the first step. • Provision of guidelines and recommendations for overcoming/improving the existing situation

  10. THE METHODS OF USE 1 2 3 4

  11. THE METHODS OF USE Depiction of the questionnaire example (IA 2) 1 2 3 4

  12. DATABASEhttp://kvadratic.com/gtz/ • The technologies used : • PHP server-side scripting language, version 5.2.9 • MySQL database, version 5.0.81 • Flex Free Open source Framework, SDK version 3.3 • Apache 2.2.11 UNIX Server

  13. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONSDepiction of the territory where the RSEM has been tested Where is the RSEM tested? In 4 municipalities in Eastern Serbia region as a case study. 16 municipal administrations’ employees Bordering Romania Bordering Bulgaria

  14. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • The RSEM is designed as a TOOL which helps to: • Define a road map for LGs in rural development, • Identify the specific issues and the needs of vulnerable groups (rural communities and those within the rural communities), • Make the gaps between the commitments of local authorities towards rural issues and actual implementation and impact more visible, • Guide and provide the effective advice to the local and national key decision makers in accordance with the best practice (EU), • Measuring the outcomes and impacts of local and national non-rural-specific goals and activities on rural issues, • Make the urban / rural inequalities more visible, • Lobby the Government and other agencies to get a more rural responsive perspective, • Self-assessment among local authorities.

  15. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • Key futures of the RSEM: • Assertiveness - Assertive level of accuracy for assessing the level of local governments’ sensitivity on rural issues is provided. • Comparability - Determination of the differences among the local governments • Informativeness - The RSEM is enough informative to precisely point out the shortcomings of the LG in the level of fulfillment requirements defined by the RSEM. • Simulation - The RSEM provides the possibility of simulation of results according to different priorities defined. • Universalism - The RSEM is enough universal to be used in planning the intervention in the rural development area at all levels of policy from state government policy makers through the development agencies to the local level. • Dynamism - The structure of the RSEM offers the possibility of monitoring dynamic changes and measurement of the progress in the time dimension. • Simplicity - The RSEM offers relatively simple way of handling. • Flexibility and Adaptability - The RSEM follows up the local circumstances in order to adapt itself to the situation

  16. CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES • Motivation of all participants in the evaluation process (time, resources, people, "institutional memory"...) • Objectivity, "human factor"... • Semi-structured interview, “implying" that the interviewed person knows the information, "intellectual arrogance", documenting... • Political will, willingness to publicly express views, sharing of information; • Views of other stakeholders about the sensitivity of local government? • “Sensitivity" of those who apply the RSEM? • Economic effects, benefits of rural population - whether the sensitivity of the municipality to rural issues is reflected on benefits of rural population, economic performances, is there any compatibility? • Universality - Suitability of the Model for application beyond the territory of Serbia?

  17. Thank You for your attention! Branislav Milic Zmaj Jovina Street, 7 SRB-11000 Belgrade / Serbia Tel.: +381 (11) 2630 394;  2630 414; 2630 611 Fax: +381 (11) 3220 267 Email:branislav.milic@giz.de

More Related