|
Adding Addtionality to Programs Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Chin-Wen Chang, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, cwc1104@hotmail.com
|
| Che-Hao Liu, The Legislative Yuan Republic of China, haogo0904@msn.com
|
| Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for the evaluation of research and development and innovation funding program. The article focus on connecting evaluation theory and current practice in various countries by reviewing evaluation approaches of public R&D& Innovation funding from literature concerning addtionality. This paper presents a discussion of the concept of additionality and its definition as well as the scope of its measurement. By reviewing theoretical and empirical studies, the concept of additionality and the effects of the projects carried out by comparing different countries. The findings of this paper reaffirm the importance of addtionality, enhance its implications for evaluation practice, and benefits participants in the government sponsored program. In additions, suggestions are provided based on the analysis of the results.
|
|
Evaluating the Additionality of Economic Development Policies in New Zealand
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| David Bartle, Ministry of Economic Development, david.bartle@med.govt.nz
|
| Cavan O'Connor-Close, Ministry of Economic Development, cavan.o'connor-close
|
| Abstract:
Evaluation of government policies should test for both attributable impacts and the additionality of these impacts over what would otherwise have occurred. Often additionality is considered in a descriptive way and consequently the real outcomes are insufficiently analysed. We report the results of developing and testing a new, more quantitative/econometrics based evaluation approach to these issues.
Establishment of a database of performance information on all active firms enabled a close matching of assisted firms against unassisted firms. Using econometric analysis we examined attributable effects expected from policy. The results appear robust both statistically and against qualitative studies that examine contextual issues in more depth. However, there remain challenges for comparison with other evaluations in similar areas of policy. By drawing on evidence in the area of regulatory impact analysis and cost benefit analysis, the paper makes suggestions for overcoming these challenges so that the opportunities can be fully exploited.
|
| |