1 / 10

Support to enterprise – a counterfactual approach

Ex post evaluation – WP 6c. Support to enterprise – a counterfactual approach. Daniel Mouqu é Evaluation Unit, DG REGIO. Enterprise & innovation support. Some €79 billion in 2007-13: the largest broad category of expenditure

douglasperry
Télécharger la présentation

Support to enterprise – a counterfactual approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ex post evaluation – WP 6c Support to enterprise – a counterfactual approach Daniel Mouqué Evaluation Unit, DG REGIO

  2. Enterprise & innovation support • Some €79 billion in 2007-13: the largest broad category of expenditure • Key instrument: the grant (others include: loans/VC, advice, networking, incubators) • Previously, evidence for success was mainly: • Monitoring data • Interviews on deadweight

  3. The evaluation • 2 grants (modernisation, R&D) in E. Germany • 2 databases: IAB enterprise « panel », GEFRA survey of innovation in Thuringia • Focus groups with project and prog managers • 2 scientific experts

  4. What is a counterfactual? • Used in many methods (but often implicit or qualitative) • New tool borrowed from medicine and science. Key feature: control group (think drug trial) • Harnessing the power of statistics (pro: credible, con: data-heavy) • Selecting matches: can range from very simple to very complex.

  5. Main methods of this evaluation • Controlled difference in difference (take a simple method, add regression) • Propensity Score Matching (using statistics to find “twins”) • Instrumental Variable (using grants to female entrepreneurs)

  6. Results: investment grants

  7. Results: R&D grants

  8. Results: employment • An estimated 27,000 jobs created • Significantly lower than monitoring data for jobs created (107,000). Reconciliation: gross/net. • Cannot reconcile with number of jobs safeguarded (439,000) => Strong conclusion: main effect of grants is investment (and productivity) change, not jobs

  9. In conclusion • Interesting results • An interesting method (potentially more rigorous, gives clear headline figures) • But data-heavy, so not appropriate in every case

  10. Where to find the evaluation Inforegio, then the following steps: > The Policy > Impacts and results > Evaluation > Evaluations undertaken for the Commission > 2000-2006

More Related