Governance and evaluation: The case of EU regional policy horizontal priorities

This paper argues that the framing of many programme evaluations tends to eschew any rigorous exploration of the governance aspects of programme design and implementation. This is illustrated by an examination of the method-based approach endorsed by the European Commission for the evaluation of its regional policy programmes. In line with previous work, this found that such evaluations, particularly those using management-based approaches, underplay the role of social and political agency in programme framing and implementation, and therefore in explaining outcomes. Acknowledging such factors is especially important in evaluating cross-cutting themes such as equal opportunities, environmental sustainability and social inclusion. Known as horizontal priorities in European Union policies, such issues at their heart reflect unease with the traditional functional organisation of the modern state, which while providing organisational efficiency gains for planning, is not able to cater for complex and multiple social realities in a postmodern world. Using evidence from South Yorkshire, United Kingdom, and in particular the Mid Term Evaluation of the 2000–2006 European Union Structural Funds Programme, the paper argues that a robust evaluation of such horizontal priorities has to incorporate the full range of governance factors. This is because their framing, implementation and possible achievements are contingent on, and shaped by, the mobilisation of social and political actors.     

Computerized industrial forecasting for planning in central government

This article is based on a talk presented to the I.B.M. Conference on Management Science and Strategic Planning, which was held in September 1970. It relates therefore to work on medium term industrial forecasting that was undertaken in the former Ministry of Technology. Following the announcement of the Reorganization of Central Government (Cmnd 4506) the team developing this work was transferred to the Treasury so that input-output work could be more closely integrated with macro economic model development work undertaken there. More recent developments were described in a paper presented to the 1971 Norwich Conference on Input-Output and Throughput by A. A. McLean of H.M. Treasury.     

Oversampling Through Households or Other Clusters: Comparisons of Methods for Weighting the Oversampled Elements

If a subgroup of a population is of particular interest in a survey, researchers may wish to increase the yield of this special subgroup by oversampling. One procedure for oversampling through households, or other clusters, is to divide the households into two segments: the main sample and the oversample (for which only members of the special group are eligible). Members of the oversampled special group come from both segments. This paper describes three methods for weighting the members of the special group. The household method treats the segments as strata and weights according to the proportion of households in each segment. The yield method uses weights according to the yield of special-group members in the two segments. The combined probability method provides a Horvitz-Thompson estimator using the sum of the probabilities that a person will be selected through either segment. Simulations show that the yield method produces estimates with variance lower than those of the household method. The combined probability method appears to be even more efficient. The difference in precision between the methods is small for estimates from the total sample but the household method can be markedly worse than the other two methods for estimates from the oversampled special group (over 40% greater variance in one scenario). Results from a community sample illustrate the comparisons. Because the household method can be much less efficient it should not be used.     

On two approximations to the F-distribution: Application to testing for intraclass correlation in family studies

Two approximations to the F-distribution are evaluated in the context of testing for intraclass correlation in the analysis of family data. The evaluation is based on a computation of empirical significance levels and a comparison between p-values associated with these approximations and the corresponding exact p-values. It is found that the approximate methods may give very unsatisfactory results, and exact methods are therefore recommended for general use.     

Report on matching procedures of a dual record system in the southern Philippines

There are generally three stages to the development of rules for matching vital events data from two sources covering the same population: (a) establishing a set of “true” matches and nonmatches; (b) determining the best tolerance limits for each single characteristic which might be used in matching; and (c) experimenting to determine the set or sets of characteristics and the weights to be used in classifying a pair of records as matched or nonmatched. Specific examples, based on early matching experiments with data from the dual record system of the Mindanao Center for Population Studies (MCPS), are presented. Successive application of different sets of characteristics (differential valence rule) to the remaining unmatched events produced an acceptable rule for matching in this study.