The European project, federalism and evaluation

Evaluation

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2008, Pages

  Stame, Nicoletta ^a,b  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b Department of Social Research ^*  (Italy)

Author keywords

Additionality; Contribution; Federalism; Subsidiarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 41149109114     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389007087535     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (61)

1. Armstrong, H.W. and P. Wells (2006 a) Structural Funds and the Evaluation of Community Economic Development Initiatives in the UK: A Critical Perspective, Regional Studies 40 (2). 259-72.
2. Armstrong, H.W. and P. Wells (2006 b) Evaluating the Governance of Structural Funds Programmes: The Case of Community Economic Development in South Yorkshire, European Planning Studies 14 (6). 855-76.
3. Ban, C. (2006) Working within the Commission: The Life of Citizens-Bureaucrats, Eyes on Europe (Winter).
4. Barbier, J.C. (2006) Coordination of Social Policies at EU Level: An Ambiguous Relation between Evaluation and Politics, paper presented at the EES conference, London.
5. Bauer, M.W. (2006) Co-managing Programme Implementation: Conceptualizing the European Commissions Role in Policy Execution, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (5). 717-35.
6. Blom-Hansen, J. (2005) Principals, Agents, and the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy, Journal of European Public Policy 12 (4). 624-48.
7. Burgess, M. (2006) Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
8. Campbell, D. (1969) Reforms as Experiments, American Psychologist 24: 409-29.
9. Celano, S. (2005) Governance, Democrazia Locale e Degenerazione delle Politiche (Governance, Local Democracy and the Degeneration of Policies), Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 4 (33). 77-94.
10. Chelimsky, E. (2006) The Purposes of Evaluation in a Democratic Society, in I. E. Shaw, J. C. Greene and M. M. Mark (eds) Handbook of Evaluation: Policies, Programs and Practices, pp. 33-55. London: SAGE.
11. Cronbach, L.J. et al. (1980) Toward Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Danish Technical Institute (2005) Thematic Evaluation of the Structural Funds Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, mimeo prepared for DG Regio.
13. Diamond, M. (1974) What the Framers Meant by Federalism, in R. A. Goldwin (ed.) A Nation of States. Essays in the American Federal System, pp. 25-42. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
14. Drucker, P. (1980) The Deadly Sins in Public Administration, Public Administration Review 40 (2). 103-6.
15. Eliazar, D.J. (1972) American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Thomas Crowell Co.
16. European Commission (2000) Focus on Results: Strengthening Evaluation of Commission Activities, SEC (2000) 1051.
17. European Commission (2002) Communication on Impact Assessment, COM (2002) 276.
18. European Commission (2003) European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428.
19. European Commission (2005) Better Regulations for Growth and Jobs in the European Union, Commission communication, COM (2005) 97.
20. European Commission, DG Regional Affairs and DG Employment (2007) Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation Methods: Evaluation during the Programming Period, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/working/ wd5_ongoing_en.pdf
21. Grodzins, M. (1966) The American System. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
22. Holvoet, N. and R. Renard (2003) Desk Screening of Development Projects: Is it Effective?, Evaluation 9 (2). 173-91.
23. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
24. Kerber,W. and M. Eckardt (2007) Policy Learning in Europe: The Open Method of Coordination and Laboratory Federalism, Journal of European Public Policy 14 (2). 227-47.
25. Manski, C. F. and I. Garfinkel, eds (1992) Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Marks, G. and L. Hooghe (2004) Contrasting Vision of Multi-Level Governance, in I. Bache and M. Flanders (eds) Multi-Level Governance, pp. 15-30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Mayne, J. (2001) Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly, Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 16 (1). 1-24.
28. Meldolesi, L. (2007) La quarta libert: Come padroneggiare la pubblica amministrazione. Acireale -Rome: Bonanno.
29. Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (4). 473-524.
30. Nagel, S. (1976) Introduction, in C. O. Jones and R. D.Thomas (eds) Public Policy Making in a Federal System, pp. 7-9. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
31. Oates, W.E. (1999) An Essay on Fiscal Federalism, Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1120-49.
32. Osborne, D. (1988) Laboratories of Democracy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
33. Patton, M.Q. (2001) Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Best Practices, and High Quality Lessons Learned, American Journal of Evaluation 22 (3). 329-36.
34. Pawson, R. (2002) Evidence-Based Policy: The Promise of Realist Synthesis, Evaluation 8 (3). 340-58.
35. Perrin, B. (2006) How Evaluation Can Help Make Knowledge Management Real, in R. Rist and N. Stame (eds) From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative Systems, pp. 23-45. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
36. Pressman, J.R. and A. Wildavsky (1974) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37. Radaelli, C. (2005) Diffusion without Convergence: How Political Context Shapes the Adoption of Regulatory Impact Assessment, Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5). 1-20.
38. Radaelli, C. (2007) Whither Better Regulation for the Lisbon Agenda?, Journal of European Public Policy 14 (2). 190-207.
39. Rein, M. (1979) Social Science and Public Policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
40. Renda, A. (2006) Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art, and the Art of the State. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
41. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996) The New Governance: Governing without Government, Political Studies 64: 652-67.
42. Rieper, O. (1997) Intergovernmental Evaluation of an EU-Funded Regional Development Program in Denmark, in O. Rieper and J.Toulemonde (eds) Politics and Practices of Intergovernmental Evaluation, pp. 99-115. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
43. Rieper, O. and J. Toulemonde (eds) (1997) Politics and Practices of Intergovernmental Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
44. Schafer, A. (2006) A New Form of Governance? Comparing the Open Method of Coordination to Multilateral Surveillance by the IMF and the OECD, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (1). 70-88.
45. Scriven, M. (1981) Evaluation Thesaurus. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.
46. Stame, N. (2001) Tra approcci principali alla valutazione: Distinguere e combinare (Three Main Approaches to Evaluation: Distinguishing and Combining), in M. Palumbo (ed.) Il processo della valutazione (The Evaluation Process), pp. 21-46. Milan: Angeli.
47. Stame, N., ed. (2004 a) Per la valutazione delle politiche di emersione (Evaluating the Policies of Labour Regularization). Milan: Angeli.
48. Stame, N. (2004 b) Theory-Based Evaluations and Types of Complexity, Evaluation 10 (1). 58-76.
49. Stame, N. (2006) Governance, Democracy and Evaluation, Evaluation 12 (1). 7-16.
50. Stevens, A. and H. Stevens (2001) Brussels Bureaucrats? Basingstoke: Palgrave.
51. Summa, H. and J. Toulemonde (2002) Evaluation in the European Union: Addressing Complexity and Ambiguity, in J. E. Furubo, R. Rist and R. Sandhal (eds) International Atlas of Evaluation, pp. 407-24. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
52. Sundquist, J.L. (1969) Making Federalism Work. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
53. European Commission (2005) How the eEurope OMC worked: Implications for the Coordination of Policy under i2010, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ information_society/evaluation/data/pdf/studies/2005_omc_Finalrep.pdf
54. European Commission (2006) The Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development: The Guide, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/ evalsed/index_en.htm
55. Toulemonde, J. (1996) Can we Evaluate Subsidiarity? Elements of Answers from the European Practice, International Review of Administrative Sciences 62: 49-61.
56. Toulemonde, J. (1997) Europe and the Member States: Cooperating and Competing on Evaluation Grounds, in O. Rieper and J. Toulemonde (eds) Politics and Practices of Intergovernmental Evaluation, pp. 117-32. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
57. Van den Berg, R. (2005) Results Evaluation and Impact Assessment in Development Co-operation, Evaluation 11 (1). 27-36.
58. Van Kersbergen, K. and B. Veerbeck (2004) Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance in the European Union, Comparative European Politics 2: 142-62.
59. Weiss, C.H. (1998) Evaluation, 2 nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
60. Wildavsky, A. (1967) American Federalism in Perspective. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
61. Wilson, W. (2004) The Study of Administration, in J. M. Shafritz and A. C. Hyde (eds) Classics in Public Administration, 5 th edn, pp. 22-34. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.