PardubiceERASM_on_EUgrants_selection.pptx

Presentation on EU funds use

1. BETTER EARLIER - WHAT REALLY MATTERS WHEN SELECTING EU PROJECTS? Łukasz Konopielko, PhD

2. European Funds Various forms, various levels e.g. transborder, country-level, region – based, subject focused etc. Case of direct intervention/reallocation of resources. Number of issues associated: Economic questions: efficiency, impact on well-being, reason for intervention (positive externalities? Market failure? Export competitiveness?) Policy questions: pros and cons, threat or opportunity?, who should be supported?– how the selection process should look like?

3. Effects / approaches Clearly GDP: investment up, some effects on C etc. AD/AS model – shift of AS right, shift in AD R+D schemes – positive externality Positive effects anyway, but the key question is whether it can be better/more efficient? Usually compulsory evaluations available in terms of: beneficiary satisfaction, expenditures, job places created, level of difficulty etc – key problem: proper choice of reference group – should be approved vs rejected applicants, but often not feasible.

4. Data sources - surveys – tend to be biased , especially while conducted by granting institution - registry data/financial statements – limited data, lack of project/standard activities separation - grant lists – limited volume of data too, often descriptive and not standarised - own collection/field research – limited sample, lack of response, qualitative rather than quantitative.

5. Research direction / questions Who should be supported? For what support should be granted? What sort of criteria to use? How to organise selection to achieve desired results, yet eliminate rent-seeking behaviours? Internal efficiency of selection procedure Who is successful? Is there an additionality/multiplier effect? Ultimately: how it can be improved?

6. E-service support schemes Research based on 27 30 projects focused on e-services creation, published in European Journal of Service Management, 2018. U se of various metrics focused on visibility, popularity and valuation e.g. valuation SitePrice , Facebook likes. Two rounds of data collection in the period of 2015-2018. Results: Quality indicators of the websites in sample deteriorates quickly and there is no significant difference between subsequent calls rounds that took place over 2008-2013 period. N egative conclusions on sustainability of projects as well as on efficiency of public support for e-services are drawn. Efficiency measured in terms of grant values comparing to what’s left after ca. 3 years: $ 3,184 SitePrice and $ 18,101 Worthofweb , while the mean value of subsidy was 145,626 USD. After another 3 years aprox . 50% additional decline.

7. Who’s receiving grants on Mazovia ? Subject of analysis: 2010 support scheme for SME competitiveness by innovations – Activity 1.5 Sample: 235 grants, ca. 15 mln EUR grants’ value Estimation related to size of grants: Y_sub = a1LEGAL+a2micro+a3small+a4technology +a5product+a6unempl+a7Warsaw Significant (negatively): only a4 and a5 Introduction on new technology and new product implies lower grant value - is this really an implied aim of scheme? Weakness: both data derived from grant title.

8. Does the time matter ? Some 6000 observations (positive and negative) from both nationwide and regional programmes collated. Logistic regression models with dichotomous feature indicating whether a given application was successful in the course of the competition (value '1’), not (value '0’) Explanatory variable: percentile (no of submission), year, value. Significance: positive: year (easier towards the end of given financial perspective), negative: percentile (delayed submitting the application, the lower the probability of its positive consideration). However, the year with the greatest impact.

9. Conclusions Efficiency of scheme depends on performance measure applied. Other features important, too. Rather ex-post than ex-ante reasoning Political/subjective reasoning prevails. No radical changes in directions/recipient groups Main weakness of schemes: subjectivity in criteria choice, combination/multiplication of items does not bring efficient outcome. Based on “images” of impact rather than evaluation-based approach. Time matters better earlier – spend, submit etc All in all: interesting research field

10. THANK YOU! Łukasz Konopielko [email protected]