Vi investerer i din fremtid DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION Den Europæiske Fond for Regionaludvikling DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION Den Europæiske Socialfond Monitoring and effects measurement STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMME IN THE REGION OF SOUTHERN DENMARK 2007-2011 • Design and Creative Industries • Energy Efficiency • Offshore • Health Care and Welfare Innovation • Tourism • Broad Measures
Structural Funds Programme in the Region of Southern Denmark 2007-2011
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Vi investerer i din fremtid
DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONDen Europæiske Fond
for Regionaludvikling
DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONDen Europæiske Socialfond
Monitoring and effects measurement
Structural FundS programme in the region oF Southern denmark 2007-2011
BackgroundIn order to establish a solid foundation for monitoring and evaluation of the business policy measures, the Danish Business Authority, Statistics Denmark, the five Danish regions and the Regional Municipality of Bornholm have developed a tool that enables the monitoring of those companies that participate in business development pro-jects.
The tool can furthermore be used to assess if the projects have had effects for the participating companies.
In the present report, the tool is utilised for monitoring and measuring the effects of Structural Funds initiatives wi-thin the strategic business development policy areas in the Region of Southern Denmark. All projects within the same area are treated as one in the analysis.
In the English version of the report, a selection of illustra-tive results is included, primarily those concerned with measuring effects.
The report has been produced in collaboration between Statistics Denmark, the Danish Business Authority and the Region of Southern Denmark.
The data used is from Statistics Den-mark’s registers on the employment and turnover of Danish companies. Statistics Denmark and the Danish Business Aut-hority have carried out the data analyses, while interpretations and conclusions were made by the Region of Southern Denmark and the Danish Business Aut-hority.
The effects measurement is done by com-paring the development of participating companies with that of a control group of companies, which resemble the partici-pating companies but did not participate in the project themselves. If the group of participants performs better than the con-trol group, e.g. measures by job creation, this indicates that the project has had positive effects.
key priority areasThe present effects measurement focuses on those key priority areas around which the business de-velopment programme in the Region of Southern Denmark is centred:
All projects within the same area are tre-ated as one in the analysis. The projects that are included in the monitoring and effects measuring have different start and end dates. The earliest were initiated in 2007, while the most recent projects in this analysis started in 2011.
To treat all projects within the same priority area as one, i.e. as one project, provides a useful over-view, and it may furthermore reduce the statistical uncer-tainty in the measurement of effects. At the same time, however, other uncer-tainty elements are introduced, implying that one should be more careful when interpreting the estimated effects.The projects are divided into two groups in the analysis: projects initiated in 2007 to 2009 and in 2010 to 2011, respectively.
Structural Funds projectsThe analysis exclusively concerns Struc-tural Funds projects, of which a total of 69 were initiated in the period 2007-2011 in 6 areas
Following recommendation of the Growth Forum of Southern Denmark, the projects are supported with 563 mn. DKK in EU funds. The EU funds provide co-financing of up to 50 per cent of the total costs of a structural fund project. This implies that the total budget for the 69 projects is at least 1.126 mn. DKK.
private sector participant companiesAll Structural Fund projects report every six months to the Danish Business Authority which specific companies have participated in a project. The 69 projects have reported a total of nearly 5,900 partic-ipating companies.
The monitoring and measurement of ef-fects focuses on the private sector partici-pant companies. Public sector participants will typically also benefit from partici-pating in the projects, but the effects aredifficulttomeasureonthebasisofavailable register data. Thus, public sector entities among the 5,900 participants are excluded from the analysis.
In addition, double records – e.g. a company that has participated in more than one project – are excluded.
A company can only be included under the same key priority area once in each of the two project periods.
A company may, however, participate under more than one key priority area in both project periods. This means that one cannot sum the figures and effects across areas and project periods.
The 69 projects have different start and end dates. The earliest were initiated in 2007, the most recent ones in 2011. More-over, even within the same project, there may be differences in when companies start and finish their participation. The analysis does not account for this.
All projects and participating companies within each key priority area are treated as one for each of the project periods, regardless of the concrete start and end date of the individual project and regardless of when individual companies participated in the particular project.
Monitoring and effects measurement for projects initiated in 2007-2009 and 2010-2011, respectively, within six key priority areas:
• DesignandCreativeIndustries
• EnergyEfficiency
• Offshore
• HealthCareandWelfareInnovation
• Tourism
• BroadMeasures
Focus on private sector company participants:
• The companies’ p-numbers (local kind of activityunit numbers) are matched with Statistics Denmark’s registers
• The development in employment and turnover of participant companies is monitored
• Measurement of employment and turnover effects within the six key priority areas
project start 2007 to 2009:
• 44 projects have reported 2,037 par-ticipating companies. Double records, public sector entities, and terminated or inactive companies are taken out.
• 767 companies monitored in the peri-od from second half of 2009 to sec-ond half of 2014.
project start 2010 and 2011:
• 25 projects have reported 3,848 par-ticipating companies. Double records, public sector entities, and terminated or inactive companies are taken out.
• 1,550 companies are monitored in the period from second half of 2011 to second half of 2014
• The share of participating companies with a positive growth is compared to the correspond-ing share for the control group, i.e. non-participating companies with characteristics similar to those of the participating companies.
• The control group if constructed so as to control for company geographical location, activity, size and histori-cal growth pattern.
• • Effectsaremeasuredfor2009-2014forthosecompa-nies that participated in Structural Funds projects initi-ated 2007 to 2009, and for 2011-2014 for participants in projects initiated in 2010 and 2011.
• • Themeasurementofeffectsisdoneforeachofthesixkey priority areas and produces esti-mates of the abso-lute employment and turnover effects.
how to read the reSultS?
• The tables on the following pages show the “success rate” for the participant and control groups, respective-ly. Successes are companies with a positive employ-ment or turnover growth in the period from second half of 2009 to second half of 2014 or from second half of 2011 to second half of 2014, respectively.
• For example, 44 per cent of the participants in the De-sign and Creative Industries projects initiated in 2007-2009 experienced a positive employment growth from the second half of 2009 to the second half of 2010. The corresponding share for the control group is 33 per cent.
• In principle, the difference between the participant and control groups can be coincidental. This can be tested statistically, however. If the p-value is close to zero
(cf. tables), one can rule out that the difference bet-ween the two groups is due to coincidence.
• The p-value from the Design and Creative Industries example shows that with 11 per cent probability the difference after one year between the participant and control group is due to coincidence.
• Normally, it is assumed that the p-value should be 0.05 (5 per cent significance) or lower in order to be able to rule out coincidence. In the Design and Creative Industries example the p-value is higher, indicating that it cannot be ruled out, that the share of companies with positive growth is the same in the participant and control groups. In other words, there is not a significant difference between the share of successes among the two groups.
how are the eFFectS meaSured?
calculating effects estimates
Significant effects
As the tables demonstrate, significant employment effects after five years
are found for the projects initiated in 2007-2009 under the areas Energy
In order to establish a solid foundation for monitoring and evaluation of the business policy measures, the Danish Business Authority, Statistics Denmark, the five Danish regions and the Regional Municipality of Bornholm have developed a tool that enables the monitoring of those companies that participate in business development pro-jects.
The tool can furthermore be used to assess if the projects have had effects for the participating companies.
In the present report, the tool is utilised for monitoring and measuring the effects of Structural Funds initiatives wi-thin the strategic business development policy areas in the Region of Southern Denmark. All projects within the same area are treated as one in the analysis.
In the English version of the report, a selection of illustra-tive results is included, primarily those concerned with measuring effects.
The report has been produced in collaboration between Statistics Denmark, the Danish Business Authority and the Region of Southern Denmark.