Results of task 1

• Author: Naldini, Andrea; Pompili, Marco; Peruccacci, Eleonora
• Pages: 28-48

28

Section 3.Results ofTask1

This section illustratesthe findings ofthe analyses carried out in Task 1. This task

focused on nat ional obligations to evaluate in th e MSs and th eir evaluation systems for

aid schemes.

3.1.The analy sis of t he country profile s

This section illustrates the main findings based on a cross-analysis of the country

profiles. The 28 country profiles are available in annex A; each one is organised in 6

sections: 1) national rules for evaluation ofSt ate aidschemes; 2) nat ional authorities

responsible for the evaluation of State aid; 3) national guidelines to evaluate State aid

schemes; 4) the process of the national evaluation of State aid;5) strengths and

weaknesses of the evaluation process; 6) mapping of the ex-post evaluations ofSt ate

aidschem es im plem ent ed accor ding to national rules.

3.1.1.Prelim inar y r emarks

The analysis of Task 1 examines the obligation to evaluate State aidin each country.

Since t hese obligat ions ar e not always in force and, since t hey m ay differ fr om count ry

to co unt ry when th ey do e xist , t he cont ent s an d t he details of the cou ntr y p rof iles diff er

as some of t hem ar e m ore det aile d t han ot her s an d need less e xpla nat ions. I n addi tion,

difference in theavailability of information and degree of interaction with officials

responsible for State aid during th is diff icult period added to t hese differ ences. Despite

these difficulties all 28 coun try profiles are complete and answ er th e main quest ions of

the stu dy.

The country profile describes the main characteristics of the managementand

coordinat ion model ofSt ate aid. This adds t o ou r underst anding of t he development of

the nat iona l State aidsyst em and its management capacit y.

Interpreting the evaluation concept wasone of the mostdifficult steps in the cross-

analysis of the country profiles. By its very nature, the evaluation concept includes

different meanings depending on the type (ex-ante, ongoing, ex-post), the aims

(compliance with a specific set of rules, measurement of socio-economic effects,

accountability of public expenditure) and t he approach (impact evaluation, m onitoring

of results, achievement of initial objectives). Consequently, itis not surprising that in

legal acts and pract ical experiences of the 28 MSs the term “ evaluation” has different

meanings or is used for different purposes. These differences made it difficult to

compare national models and often required additional clarifications from national

exper ts.

To make the national approaches toState aidevaluation com parable, the definition of

evaluation of the EC methodology forState aidevaluation7has been used. This

definition can be summarised as an “impact evaluation” aimed to measure the socio-

economic effectiveness of the subsidy and its influence on market competition. The

impact evaluation does not necessarily have to be implemented after expiryof t he aid

scheme, but a consistentnum ber of investments supported by the scheme must be

implementedt o d ete rmine t heir effect s; in th is r espec t i t i s an ‘e x-pos t’ evalu ation. The

7European Commission, 2014, Common methodology forState aidevaluation, SWD(2014) 179

fin alBru ssels, 28. 5.20 14

29

use of this definition and the need to differentiate the impact evaluation fromother

types of evaluations has meant that we have had to adapt t he wording and the other

types of evaluations have been labelled with synonyms, such as ‘assessment’ or

‘analysis of compliance’, or qualified with specific attributes (such as, ex-ante or on-

going ).The pur pose of th e an alysi s ha s alw ay s bee n t o co mp are the nat ion al e valu at ion

models with the EC evaluation requirements and atthe same time to take into

consideration the differences an d complex ity of each national cont ext .

From a theoret ical po int of view, th is ap proa ch m ay be d ebat able, b ecause m any ot her

definitions of evaluation are possible and valid, butit is justified by the aims of the

study. This definition, in fact , m akes it possible t o clearly identify count ries which hav e

ob liga tio ns anda dm ini str ati ve arr ang em ent s a ime d a t imp lem ent in g e valu at ions sim il ar

to t hose required by the GBER and EC g uidelines.

3.1.2.Obligations to ev aluate

The obligation to evaluateState aidmeasures is the first element examined in the

country profiles. This obligation differentiat es betw een countries t hat are used t o, and

have the structuresfor evaluat ing, State aid schemes from those countries which are

not, and wher e such im plem entation would require a specific effort.

According to our analysis,19 countries have no general obligation to carry out impact

evaluations of p ublic policies.

In two countries (UK, IE) the obligation to evaluate stems from administrative rules

aim ed at an ef ficien t use of p ublic resources; in the ot her six count ries (AT, DE, FR, FI ,

NL, SE) the obligation is stipulated by law, but it always derives from the principle of

prom oting efficient and effective managem ent of public resources. Finally , in Denm ark

the obligation is defined on a case by casebasist hroug h ev aluati on clauses inclu ded in

the policy act s or polit ical agr eement s betw een th e m ain par ties.

In some cases,countries with no obligation to carry outimpact evaluationh ave

arran gement s for im plem enting differ ent k inds of assessments; for instance, in Poland

t here is an obli gat ion to car ry out e x-an te eval uat ionsor Regu lat ory I mp act asse ssme nt

of new policies.

The obligation to implement impact evaluation of State aidis governed by the same

rules as the evaluation of other public policies; consequently, theabove division

bet ween coun tries wit h and with out obligat ion still stan ds. The only exception is Spa in,

wh ich does not hav e a general ob ligation to evaluat e but has recen tly de fine d a specif ic

model for the monitoring and assessment of subsidies; the obligation to follow this

control system requires the assessment of the final achievements of the subsidies but

does n ot exp licit ly req uire an im pact evalua tion as defined in th e EC guidelines.

The MSs with no obligat ion to evaluat e State aiddiffer from each other and their rules

frequentlyrequire an ex-ante evaluat ion or a com pliance assessment . However, these

requirementsappearto be more directed towards checking the compliance with EU

ru les and coordinating int ernal proposals rather than being a prev entive assessm ent of

th e socio-eco nomic effects or creating a baseline for future im pact evaluations.