The Latest

I feel Slovenia is a cornerstone of the Slovenian National Development Plan

On February 25, 2013, in Regional growth, Smart news from others, Smart strategic planning, by Oikos
0

National strategic documents should be based on residents’ consensus regarding their current state and future opportunities being as much as possible based on realistic understanding of their strengths and weaknesses to be able to realistically plan for the future.

I feel Slovenia, The Brand of Slovenia, Published by the Ministry of Economy, developed by Pristop, 2007

I feel Slovenia, The Brand of Slovenia, Published by the Ministry of Economy, developed by Pristop, 2007


Luckily Slovenia implemented a strong process defining the brand of Slovenia some years ago being later formulated as I feel Slovenia which is less important than messages being incorporated in a whole brand and its background. They tell who we are and what are we able to do in the future.

The Story of Slovenia is based on some facts from being enthusiastic towards everything we enjoy to being different and being oriented towards our vision: green boutiqueness to be delivered through mission oriented towards development with nature. The band is being very clear on Slovenians: we are society of individuals with common goals, we wish to contribute and we want to live in a safe state because we respect diversity where society’s quality of life depends on the individual’s balance. In economic terms we do understand that we need to be focused on niches while organic development is a denominator of

I feel Slovenia, The Brand of Slovenia, Published by the Ministry of Economy, developed by Pristop, 2007

I feel Slovenia, The Brand of Slovenia, Published by the Ministry of Economy, developed by Pristop, 2007The Brand of Slovenia, Published by the Ministry of Economy, developed by Pristop, 2007

our prosperity.  Slovenia is a tourist destination with diversity based on desires while green is the color of people and their environment.  Culture is our value while everybody is an artist while our interests and proximity are keys to science. Movement towards natural limits is in us in sports but is spread in all areas we live and work in. (Full document can be found here.)

Some could argue that all of these are just words but if you really look to us internally and if you really take time to explore our inner circles and the society we live in you will find answers very similar to what the brand says.

So while preparing the National Development Plan we have a rather simple work to be done while we should be careful of two important points:

  • Strategic planning process is a knowledge process not a document preparation. In order to be successful State will need to create large learning loop in order to get people understand their inner circle and our basic starting points this will help institutions and people get on. By developing knowledge on who we really are and how can we really be successful will give us a momentum to change borders in our heads. The logic of me being stupid and you being the most smart one will be turned to how can we function in the global market where only the best can survive.
  • Strategic planning is successful if it supports what you are and what you able to achieve. Strategic documents must be developed to support all of us to be what we are and support us in opportunities we have. By developing measures which support what we are not is damaging our future and our opportunities. Measures need to be in line with simple facts lied down in the Story of Slovenia not in some socio-economic analysis without understanding a context of data and analysis collected.

European union is asking us to understand our smart specialization in order to be able to use scares development resources more focused and concentrated and in order to get our priorities straight. Well easy task for us, we know it, our priority is: Getting people busy. Very busy.

Smart specialization sectors for next planning period may be seen as:

  • Further support to tourism.
  • Entrepreneurship and innovation in strong coordination with art, culture and sport to use our creativeness for personal and entrepreneurial growth and science.
  • Mobilization of government to govern and enable growth.

This offers a list of potential packages of measures for the National Development Plan:

  • Spatial efficiency and polycentric development (being focused to spatial, agriculture and rural, environmental and transport, regional and local development type policies).
  • Knowledge loop (being focused to social, education, administration, innovation type policies).
  • Cooperated entrepreneurship and innovation (being focused to business, education, administration, innovation, rural and agricultural type policies).
  • Public private partnership to employ the national capital (being focused to administration, education, financial and monetary type policies). 
 

Seven guiding principles for analyzing data

On February 21, 2013, in Smart news from others, Smart strategic planning, by Oikos
0

Regions are in process of strategic positioning data analysis is a weak part of this challenge  so we found some interesting and very short guiding principles in doing this interesting job. Read this before you start thinking of analyzing the region.

I was talking to an old friend the other day who is involved in using the results of research to help grow a business. He told me some interesting stories that made me revisit some basic tenets of good analysis. Yes, you may think that some of these are obvious, but they still bear repeating. Here are seven interrelated principles to start with:

  • Process is a way of thinking, not a substitute for thinking. You’d be surprised at how many people fall into this trap. For example, in behavioral research certain metrics might be the norm for capture. These might include the number of times that eye contact was made, or the quality of the interaction with the examiner. However, simply because others have used these “tried and true” measures doesn’t mean that they necessarily fit the situation you’re currently examining. Think about it.
  • Data needs to be thought about and reported in context. This is a pet peeve for me. If someone tells me that 1.5 million Americans were out of work at some point during the Great Depression I may think that is terrible, but I don’t really understand what that means because that fact was not put into context. I don’t know what percent of the working population this represents, or for that matter if it includes women or other groups. When a vendor tells me that Company X saved $20M by utilizing its product, that’s great but what does it really mean? What percent of its overall costs whether by department or company does
    Radionica: Početak analize razvojnih partnera

    Radionica: Početak analize razvojnih partnera

    this represent? How is another company, looking at this information, supposed to respond unless it understands what the data mean in context.

  • Look before you leap. Before you start applying statistical techniques or cranking out charts and reports, take a good hard look at the data you’ve collected. Be thoughtful. Ask yourself some basic questions such as, “Do the data seem reasonable, complete, and accurate?” “What are the data suggesting?” “Is there some sort of hypothesis I can propose to test based on the data?” Often times people simply jump into running every sort of analysis on their data, simply because they can.
  • Question everything. If you are using the results from someone else’s analysis to build upon, you need to question how they got their results. Did this analysis make sense? How big was the sample? This is I hope a basic principle in scientific research but I haven’t seen it necessarily carried over into business. If your sales figures have jumped by 50%, you need to ask yourself, “Why?” Perhaps new products were added or new markets were tapped. Whatever the reason, make sure the data makes sense. Data quality is obviously important here.
  • Do a gut check. this is an extension of the question everything principle. Again, once you’ve done some analysis, you need to ask yourself whether it makes sense to you or not. Remember the old saying, if something is too good to be true it probably is. If your sales figures have jumped by 150%, you need to ask yourself if this is possible and then go and figure it out.
  • Coincidence is not the same as causality. Just because it may appear that two variables are somehow related it doesn’t mean that they are. Remember to question everything and do a gut check.
  • Just because the data exist doesn’t mean the data are relevant. Here, you need to ask yourself what you are trying to figure out. Just because you have the data doesn’t mean that the data are necessarily useful to your analysis.

via Seven guiding principles for analyzing data « Fern Halper’s data makes the world go ’round.

 

Energy Agencies Evaluation Key Findings

On February 19, 2013, in Smart news from others, This is who we are, by Oikos
0
Several regions are thinking of applying for funding of energy agencies  in coming period. Before doing so it may be of importance to read an evaluation focused to operations and achievements of energy agencies round Europe.

Energy label, picture is from http://group.electrolux.com

Energy Label, picture is from http://group.electrolux.com

Value of energy agencies
  • Energy agencies are of local value because they provide information / advice to energy users, technical assistance and policy advice to public authorities, and facilitate the development of local sustainable energy markets.
  • Many of these activities require a long-term mandate and corresponding commitment from public authorities.
  • Information flows between agencies and EU policy makers (both bottom-up and top-down) need to be better structured and resourced. Existing feedback tools (including ManagEnergy) could be adapted to make bottom-up communication more effective and to facilitate its take-up at European level.
Demand for energy agencies
  • There is significant demand among a number of public authorities for the creation of energy agencies.
  • While the local added value of energy agencies is evident, there has been no observable snowball effect from the creation of the IEE energy agencies to date.
  • The current minimum population coverage of at least 200,000 people appears to be appropriate.
  • Agencies should only be created where they address a specific local demand, rather than merely to ensure a more equal geographic distribution.
Support for and sustainability of energy agencies
  • The majority of IEE funded energy agencies perceive the IEE establishment grant as appropriate in size.
  • EU support complements, rather than replaces, other sources of funding, and the number of energy agencies would be significantly smaller without IEE funding.
  • Securing local political support beyond the IEE funding period is vital for the sustainability of energy agencies, especially given the long-term orientation of many agency activities. While this has been forthcoming in most cases, there are examples where funding was discontinued prematurely, resulting in a scaling down of agency activities.
  • The availability of new sources of funding to ensure sustainability is a major concern for existing agencies. This is likely to exacerbate as agencies with larger IEE co-funding shares (up to 75%) approach the end of their work programme.
Organisation and work programme
  • The 3-year IEE work programme for new energy agencies is broadly appropriate and usually leads to successful and sustainable agencies.
  • Several administrative and legal structures (including the IEE model) are able to meet the needs of local authorities for energy advice and technical assistance.
  • Independence and not for profit status are important assets for energy agencies as they need to provide credible, high quality information, advice and assistance to a variety of stakeholders.
  • A simple and transparent evaluation and monitoring scheme could make this success more transparent to agencies themselves and to their stakeholders.

The evaluation of the relevance of Community funding of local and regional energy agencies was done by Matrix insight in cooperation with eco-logic and was prepared for the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation. Oikos, namely Mojca Hrabar participated with evaluation of the energy agencies in Sweden, Spain, Bulgaria and Italy.

 

Financing of the regional development

On February 19, 2013, in Growth funding, Regional growth, This is who we are, by Oikos
0

Financial problems of regional development appear in two phases of Program Cycle Management: in the formulation of the project and in its implementation.

The crucial part of the problem lies in the preparation of the project where the initial idea and definition of the project needs to be elaborated In the project preparation process several crucial questions regarding the project’s relevance, objectives, expected results, risks as well as financial and other obstacles need to be clarified before deciding – and this needs time and funds for the decisions to be taken based on serious studies and proposals. The technical preparation of a project, e.g. by a feasability study and by defining location, costs, duration, technical standars to be fulfilled, acceptance by population/supposed target group, etc. Can only be carried out based on regional strategies and priorities. If not done properly regions will not be able to implement any integrated strategies nor projects.

Volosko, Croatia, February 2013

Volosko February 2013

Most regional development policies rely on other sectorial policies to finance regional projects. If we are looking to national policies most of them are based on specific and detailed financial sector plans. Practically only regional and spatial policies offer an appropriate set of instruments to integrate projects on a territorial and on policy level. But these policy fields do not have own budgets for investment projects and need to collect the funding of the integrated projects from different sectors – and sometimes different EU-funds. This fact freezes all attempts of increasing sectoral integration. And also the European Union contributes to maintaining the situation by recommending sectors (transport, environment, economy…) to initiate and develop sectorial structures for the implementation of IPA and later structural policy. This disintegrates programmes and later on projects to sectors and leaves regional policy and other tools to work towards integration. Even European Commission calls for integration while recommendations go in the direction of disintegration of implementation structures.

Countries are later not able to pull the policies together and as research shows none of the countries studies has a system or tool in place to integrate policies on project level while regions are too weak in this respect. Some coordination has been tested in all countries with inter-ministerial working groups and similar in Slovenia with long list of priority projects of the country by 2023 developed by the Government of Slovenia but all of them fail as soon as they are let to be implemented by sectors. Apart from declarative coordination among rural, structural policies and other policies there is little or no real integration on the project level.

The article is a part of a comparative Study “Regional Development in South East Europe” Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania commissioned by Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Local Governance Programme South Caucasus done in November/ December  2012 by Stefan Elsing, strategieKONTOR and Jurij Kobal, Oikos, Sustainable development.

 

Regions should decide on their own

On February 4, 2013, in Regional growth, This is who we are, by Oikos
0

The EU-Cohesion Policy offers countries to choose their priorities and select them by own will based on internal analysis and decisions so is the national level to offer regions possibilities to choose priorities they need to follow and being able to finance to follow their priorities and strategies defined. Leaving the decision on priorities to regions raises their motivation to implement regional development strategies and capacity to implement them while national level’s function is to establish the necessary implementing structures and to supervise the transparency and efficiency of procedures. Strategies, priorities and implementing arrangements of regions need to be based on culture, history, tradition and opportunities of the region not on the base of decision of the Government or European Commission so should be funding opportunities.

The territorial dimension of regional development is important for the localisation of all kind of investment projects, which need to understand target groups and the relevance of priorities and results of regional development strategies for the target groups. Projects which are born and carried by broad decision making processes in the regions are “better” Projects in terms of impact and cohesion effects.

Considering the regional decision making a greater attention needs to be paid to urban cities and their capacity to form networks and partnerships in their territory. City networks or platforms will substantially support the identification and utilization of the regions` potential.

Budapest castle

Budapest castle

The national regional development policies in the countries are built on the experiences and approaches of the EU. Its cohesion policy is asking the regional level to develop integrated projects in order to reach target groups and minimize negative effect projects do have in their environment. Regional development strategies are here a welcome tool to develop complex or better integrated and cross-sectorial projects where several funding sources would be invested in order to share risks and intervene in the area of specialization of each fund available.

Moreover, EU-Cohesion Policy implementation is enforced by the EU and its legislation while national regional development policies are not. This can be considered as an advantage, because EU-Cohesion Policy can be the driving force of regional development policy formulation and implementation in a country/ region. Through the EU Integration process countries and regions are forced to think about regional development. The own national regional development benefits from the European Cohesion Policy, even if it is not in line with all its requirements.

Structures of cohesion policy remain administrative and rigid since their aim is to evaluate the project and implement it in a most efficient and transparent manner possible. People working in these structures are more technically trained and procedural. While on the other hand regional development strategies offer a more dynamics and room for changes and long-term view. It is the regional level to manage different projects and finance them from different programs while following the overall objective of the region.

The article is a part of a comparative Study “Regional Development in South East Europe” Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania commissioned by Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Local Governance Programme South Caucasus done in November/ December  2012 by Stefan Elsing, strategieKONTOR and Jurij Kobal, Oikos, Sustainable development.

 

Western-Herzegovina County Development Strategy

On January 28, 2013, in Growth funding, Regional growth, This is who we are, by Oikos
0

Oikos strated providing professional services in technical support, facilitation and training to the Western-Herzegovina Cantonal institutions and stakeholders engaged in the process of creation of the integrated and participatory cantonal development strategy for the period 2014 – 2020. Service will result not only in a newly-developed integrated cantonal development strategy, but also in strengthened institutional capacities of the Western-Herzegovina County to design and manage development processes in an integrated and participatory manner.

WHC kick off

WHC kick off

The scope of the service covers two main types of assistance: technical assistance (TA) and training, which are embedded into the overall strategic planning process, following the general methodology described above. In other words, the service provider must ensure competency acquisition among target groups and this must translate into effective results in terms of actually developing the integrated cantonal development strategy in the form of a draft document comprising all requested strategy elements.

Services are commissioned by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the United Nations Development Programme of Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNDP BiH) and implemented in partnership with the BiH Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, the Federal Ministry of Justice, the RS Ministry for Administration and Local Self-Governance and both Associations of Municipalities and Cities.

 

National regional development policy is not EU Cohesion Policy

On January 28, 2013, in Regional growth, This is who we are, by Oikos
0

First of all it needs to be said that cohesion policy or the regional policy at the European level are not the same as regional development in Member or Candidate Countries. The two concepts are often misinterpreted and a need for calibrating the two is over-rated. Cohesion policy offers a frame for the development of Europe on large level and offers several opportunities for regions and national states to pick from while the financial mechanisms are there to be implemented through strict rules and administrative procedures in order to keep transparency and efficiency of the tax-payers money raised for regional policy and all other policies being implemented in European union.

Sarajevo 84

Sarajevo 84

EU-Cohesion Policy is part of the framework for Regional Development in a country/ region in which operational mechanisms of the EU-CP are implemented. It does not replace a national strategy or policy on regional development. EU-Cohesion Policy in the new programming period 2014 – 2020 will be implemented under the umbrella of a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) which defines 11 thematic objectives for the CFS-Funds (setting priorities in line with the Europe 2020 strategy):

  • strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
  • enhancing access to, and use and quality of information and communication technologies;
  • enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF);
  • supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;
  • promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;
  • protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;
  • promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures;
  • promoting employment and supporting labor mobility;
  • promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;
  • investing in education, skills and lifelong learning;
  • enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.

Thus, the new Cohesion Policy of the EU calls for concentration of funds – geographically and thematically. Each Operational Programme (OP) to be financed from the so-called CSF-funds has to choose a maximum of 4 priorities out of the above-listed 11 priorities.  The same goes for countries and regions which may agree on their own priorities for regional development and support smart specialization through this. These can comprise geographic/ territorial and thematic priorities aiming at concentration of funding that is expected to be limited due to economic indicators of the European territory.

Cohesion policy instruments and operational mechanisms (IPA and later when becoming Member States ERDF, ESF and CF, including the CBC-components) are one of the financial sources of regional development which should be developing several other funding mechanisms from non-financial to loans and equity. EU Cohesion Policy is one source for funding of the regional development in countries which need to establish and manage other sources private, regional, national and non-financial.

At the same time EU Cohesion Policy needs to be implemented by funding good projects, which are the result of successful (strategic, integrated and participatory) regional development planning in order to be successful on a long run.

The relation between EU-Cohesion Policy  and national regional development (policies) can be described as follows:

  • EU-CP is one source for funding RD in a country,
  • thus RD uses the EU-CP to finance RD-interventions;
  • at the same time EU-CP needs to be implemented by funding good projects, which are the result of successful (strategic, integrated and participatory) RD-planning.

Very often the EU-Cohesion Policy was one of the main impetus` to start developing an own national regional development policy in the examined states but now there is a certain need to find additional sources to motivate regional development.

The article is a part of a comparative Study “Regional Development in South East Europe” Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania commissioned by Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Local Governance Programme South Caucasus done in November/ December  2012 by Stefan Elsing, strategieKONTOR and Jurij Kobal, Oikos, Sustainable development.

 

Territorial Dimension of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe ESPON TIPSE – Nordregio

On January 8, 2013, in Regional growth, Smart news from others, by Oikos
0

Territorial Dimension of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe ESPON TIPSEThe ESPON TIPSE project will tackle the issue of poverty and processes of social exclusion in Europe. The project will improve the evidence base for policy to promote inclusive growth.One of the key challenges in Europe is to eradicate localised concentrations of poverty and social exclusion. This remains a national responsibility within the context of EU strategic guidance. In practice local administrations often face the challenge of addressing pockets of deprivation and exclusion in their areas and are charged by implementing the national policies. At a higher level, the EU defines its role as identifying best practices and promoting mutual learning.The ESPON TIPSE project aims to support policy, both by enhancing the evidence base and by identifying existing good practice. Poverty and social exclusion are essentially relative concepts, arguably meaningful only within a specified geographical context. This underlines the central importance of observation, measurement, and careful data analysis as an essential preparation for intervention.The main aim of the project is to generate a regional database and associated maps, of poverty and social exclusion indicators. The project will establish macro and micro-scale patterns of poverty and social exclusion across the ESPON space and derive recommendations for the monitoring of territorial trends in poverty and processes of exclusion.

via Territorial Dimension of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe ESPON TIPSE – Nordregio.

 

European cohesion policy in support to regional development

On November 19, 2012, in Regional growth, This is who we are, by Oikos
0

First of all it needs to be said that cohesion policy or the regional policy at the European level are not the same a regional development in member or candidate states. The two concepts are often misinterpreted and a need for calibrating the two is over rated. Cohesion policy offers a frame for the development of Europe on large level and offers several opportunities for regions and national states to pick from while the financial mechanisms are there to be implemented through strict rules and administrative procedures in order to keep transparency and efficiency of the tax-payers money raised for regional policy and all other policies being implemented in European union.

Dubrovnik

Dubrovnik

Cohesion policy (IPA and later when becoming member states ERDF, ESF and CF, including the CBC-components) are one of the financial sources of the regional development which should be developing several other funding mechanisms from non-financial to loans and equity. Cohesion policy is asking regional level to develop integrated projects in order to reach target groups and minimize negative effect projects do have in their environment. Regional development plans are here welcome tool to develop complex or better integrated and cross-sectorial projects where several funding sources would be invested in order to share risks and intervene in the area of specialization of each fund available.

Structures of Cohesion policy remain administrative and rigid since their aim is to evaluate the project and implement it in a most efficient and transparent manner possible. People working in these structures are more technically trained and procedural. While on the other hand regional development plans offer a more dynamics and room for changes and long-term view. It is the regional level to manage different projects and finance them from different programs while following the overall objective of the region.

EU cohesion policy offers countries to choose their priorities and select them by own will based on internal analysis and decisions so is the national level to offer regions possibilities to choose priorities they need to follow and being able to finance to follow their priorities and strategies defined. Leaving the decision on priorities to regions raises their motivation to implement regional development plans and capacity to implement them while national level is there to develop implementing structures and follow transparency and efficiency procedures. Priorities, strategies and implementing arrangements of regions need to be based on culture, history, tradition and opportunities of the region not on the base of decision of the government or European Commission so should be funding opportunities.

Territorial dimension of regional development is important for the localization of infrastructure projects while projects need to understand target groups and the relevance of priorities and results of regional development plans for target groups. More focus needs to be given to urban cities and their capacity to form networks and partnerships in their territory and from nets among them this will bring more potential in terms of impact and cohesion effect in the future.

Text is a part of Regional Development in South East Europe and study being developed from experiences from Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania being developed by Stefan Elsing and Jurij Kobal. More will be available when the study is finalized.

 

Dr. Shawn Cunningham « Shawn Cunninghams Weblog

On November 19, 2012, in Regional growth, Smart news from others, by Oikos
0

The myth that small enterprises drives growth and employment is an old one, one that is firmly in the rooted in minds of policy makers and development practitioners here in RSA and in our region. There seems to be a confusion between correlation and causation. Even if statistics shows that 60% of people in RSA are employed in small enterprises thus a correlation seem to exist between small firms and employment it does not tell us anything about causation does small firms create employment, or does more employment lead to more small firms being created. Research by many reputable scholars have shown that small enterprises hardly drives growth, but that it often responds to growth; it is more likely that larger better resourced companies will drive growth and efficiency in the economy, with ecosystems of small firms emerging around them providing specialized and also some general services.For instance, the reputable scholar Thorsten Beck argues that the dynamism of enterprises is more important than the size of small firms in the total economy. I first came across Becks work while doing my PhD research he has since moved from the Worlbank to Tilburg University. Beck has done many cross-country micro economic studies and argues that:“Policy efforts targeted at SMEs have often been justified with arguments that1 SMEs are an engine of innovation and growth and2 they help reduce poverty because they are labor-intensive and thus stimulate job growth, but3 they are constrained by institutional and market failures.Cross-country, country-level, and microeconomic studies, however, do not support these claims. One study shows that, although faster-growing economies have a higher share of SME employment in their manufacturing sectors, it is not the size of this segment that drives growth“.

via Dr. Shawn Cunningham « Shawn Cunninghams Weblog.

 
« Previous Entries