Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T10:24:01.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ex Ante and Ex Post Evaluations: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

The Case of Gender Mainstreaming in EU Research Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lut Mergaert  and
Rachel Minto
Lut Mergaert
Affiliation:
Management Sciences from Radboud University Nijmegen
Rachel Minto
Affiliation:
Cardiff School of Law, Politics from the University of Bristol
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article engages with two themes of contemporary EU governance: the role of evaluations within an effective and coherent policy–making process and the EU's constitutionalised commitment to promoting gender equality in all its activities (Article 8 TFEU). It focuses on the interface between ex ante and ex post evaluation and the contribution of evaluations to policy learning, with particular attention to the promotion of gender equality. A case study approach is followed, with EU research policy as the object of analysis.

Type
Symposium on Policy Evaluation in the EU
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 47 - 56
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
© Lut Mergaert and Rachel Minto 2015 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

References

1 See European Commission, “Consultation on the draft Commission Evaluation Policy Guidelines”, 10 April 2014, available on the Internet at <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/consultation/index_en.htm> (last accessed on 23 May 2014). The consultation period ended on 25 February 2014.

2 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho, “Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and programme evaluation: The contribution of the PPR methodology”, 17(3) Evaluation (2011), pp. 293 et sqq.

3 Hafner–Burton, Emilie and Pollack, Mark, “Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union: Getting the Incentives Right”, 7(1) Comparative European Politics 2009, pp. 114 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lombardo, Emanuela and Meier, Petra, “Gender Mainstreaming in the EU: Incorporating a Feminist Reading?” 13(2) European Journal of Women's studies (2006), pp. 151 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rees, Teresa, “Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe”, 7 International Feminist Journal of Politics (2005), pp. 555 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stratigaki, Maria, “Gender Mainstreaming vs Positive Action: An Ongoing Conflict in EU Gender Equality Policy”, 12(2) European Journal of Women's Studies (2005), pp. 165 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Hafner–Burton, Emilia and Pollack, Mark (2009), ibid; Pollack, Mark and Hafner–Burton, Emilie, “Mainstreaming gender in the European Union”, 7(3) Journal of European Public Policy(2000), pp. 432 et sqq. Google Scholar; Rees, Teresa, “Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Science in the European Union: the ‘ETAN Report'”, 13 Gender and Education 2001, pp. 243 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Steven Højlund, “Evaluation in the European Commission – For accountability or learning?”, in this Symposium. For an overview of the history of evaluation in DG Research, please see Erik Arnold, Bea Mahieu, James Stroyan, David Campbell, Malin Carlberg, Flora Giaracca, Andrej Horvath, Zsusza Jávorka, Paula Knee, Ingeborg Meijer, Sabeen Sidiqi and Caroline Wagner, “Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme”, Final Report To the European Commission DG Research by the European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC) 2011, at pp. 5-11.

6 Stijn Smismans, “Policy evaluation in the EU: the challenges of linking ex ante and ex post appraisal”, in this Symposium.

7 See, e.g. Versluis, Esther, van Keulen, Mendeltje and Stephenson, Paul, Analyzing the European Union Policy Process (Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Sanderson, Ian, “Evaluation, policy learning and evidence–based policy making”, 80(1) Public Administration 2002, pp. 1 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 For a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this “stages approach”, see. Esther Versluis, Mendeltje van Keulen and Paul Stephenson (2011), supra, note 7, at pp. 21-24.

10 Botterill, Linda Courtenay and Hindmoor, Andrew, “Turtles all the way down: bounded rationality in an evidence–based age”, 33(5) Policy Studies (2012), pp. 367, et sqq., at p. 369CrossRefGoogle Scholar which includes reference to Böhme, Kai, “Much Ado about Evidence: Reflections from Policy Making in the European Union”, 3(1) Planning Theory and Practice(2002), pp. 98 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See the Impact Assessment Board Reports for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

12 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho (2011), supra, note 2.

13 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho (2011), supra, note 2, at p. 305.

14 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho (2011), supra, note 2; Pineault, Raynald, Lamarche, Paul, Beaulieu, Matie–Dominique, et al., “Conceptual and Methodological Challenges in Producing Research Syntheses for Decision–and Policy–Making: An Illustrative Case in Primary Healthcare”, 16(2) Evaluation (2010), pp. 137 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saunders, Murray, “The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach”, 18(4) Evaluation (2012), pp. 421 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Saunders (2012), ibid, at p. 428.

16 Radej, Bojan, “Synthesis in policy impact assessment”, 17(2) Evaluation (2011), pp. 133 et sqq., at p. 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Juan Andres Ligero Lasa, Julia Espinosa Fajardo, Carmen Mormeneo Cortes, María Bustelo Ruesta, Making Evaluation Sensitive to Gender and Human Rights. Different Approaches, (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Secretary of State for International Cooperation and for Ibero–America,General Secretary of International Cooperation for Development Affairs and Cooperation Secretary of State for International Cooperation and for Ibero–America General Secretary of International Cooperation for Development, 2014), at p. 17.

18 Weiss, Carol H., Evaluation. Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, Second Edition (Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1998), at p. 33 Google Scholar, quoted in Juan Andres Ligero Lasa, Julia Espinosa Fajardo, Carmen Mormeneo Cortes, María Bustelo Ruesta (2014), supra, note 17, at p. 73.

19 Mergaert, Lut and Demuynck, Katlijn, The ups and downs of gender mainstreaming in the EU research policy – the gender toolkit and training activities in FP7 (Antwerp, Belgium: Policy Research Centre on Equal Opportunities, 2011).Google Scholar

20 Commission Communication on Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities, COM (96) 67 final, at p. 2.

21 The Commission's Communication on gender mainstreaming was published in 1996,when FP4 was running (1994-1998).

22 European Commission, Stocktaking 10 years of “Women in Science” policy by the European Commission (1999-2009), (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010)Google Scholar, NB This is also text#9; Mergaert and Demuynck (2011), supra, note 19.

23 European Commission (2010), ibid, at p. 216. NB This is also text#9.

24 Lut Mergaert, “The Reality of Gender Mainstreaming Implementation. The Case of the EU Research Policy” (Doctoral dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2012).

25 Steven Højlund (2014), supra, note 5.

26 Summa, Hilkka and Toulemonde, Jacques, “Evaluation in the European Union: Addressing Complexity and Ambiguity”, in Jan–Eric Furubo, Ray. C. Rist and Rolf Sandahl (eds.), International Atlas of Evaluation (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2002), pp. 407 et sqq. Google Scholar For an overview of the history of evaluation in this policy area, see Arnold, Eric, Mahieu, Bea, Stroyan, James, et al. Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, Final Report To the European Commission DG Research (European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC), 2011), at pp. 25–27.Google Scholar

27 Commission Communication on Impact Assessment, COM(2002) 276 final.

28 Lee, Norman and Kirkpatrick, Colin, “Evidence–based policymaking in Europe: an evaluation of European Commission integrated impact assessments”, 24(1) Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (2006), pp. 23 et sqq, at p. 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Commission Communication on Impact Assessment, supra, note 27, at p. 3.

30 The principle of continuous assessments underpins the Smart Regulation agenda: “To ensure that EU action is effective, the Commission assesses the impact of policies, legislation, trade agreements and other measures at every stage – from planning to implementation and review.” See European Commission, “Smart Regulation”, 13 June 2013, available on the Internet at <http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm> (last accessed on 23 May 2014).

31 Murray Saunders (2012), supra, note 14, p. 428.

32 Commission of the European Communities, Women and Science: mobilising women to enrich European research (Brussels, 1999).Google Scholar

33 Bojan Radej (2001), supra, note 16, at p. 134.

34 Lut Mergaert and Nathalie Wuiame, Report on Institutional Capacity for Gender Mainstreaming in the European Commission. Report from a study for the European Institute for Gender Equality (unpublished work, 2013).

35 Carol H. Weiss (1998), supra, note 18, at p. 33, quoted in Juan Andres Ligero Lasa, Julia Espinosa Fajardo, Carmen Mormeneo Cortes, María Bustelo Ruesta (2014), supra, note 17, at p. 73.

36 Lut Mergaert (2012), supra, note 24.

37 Lut Mergaert (2012), supra, note 24.

38 This is neatly described in Steven Højlund (2014), supra, note 5.

39 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho (2011), supra, note 2; Raynald Pineault, Paul Lamarche, Matie–Dominique Beaulieu, et al., (2012), supra, note 14; Murray Saunders (2012), supra, note 14.

40 Vítor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho (2011), supra, note 2.

41 Lut Mergaert (2012),supra, note 24.