Study Design and Research Framework 71 Having said this, it becomes obvious that other parameters usable in policy-making analyses, such as budgetary distribution or indicators suggested in the programme evaluation take a back seat in this study. This does not, however, imply that they are completely neglected.
Also, the concept of governance can be case- or question-specifically be conceptually complemented by other theories.
Disregarding the special focus on networking and governance structures, at first glance the study's approach is likely to be characterised as a sort of programme evaluation. However, there are obvious differences: First, for addressing the research question the analysis of the implementation process does not appear sufficient; policy formation has to be considered as well. Second, while programme evaluation concentrates on products, the study focuses on the process(es) of implementation, paying particular attention to the formation of governance structures and social capital. Third, contrary to most official programme evaluations, the study explicitly examines the preparatory phase of the implementation process (including the effect of non-implementation), as well as the role of the administration. Therefore, it can be expected that findings will help improve steering the implementation process in Romania.
Learning about drivers and burdens in the initial implementation phase of the two policy instruments, and experiencing which factors particularly benefit actors, as well as identifying the instruments’ unused potential through the application of relevant theories, is likely to constructively contribute to the review or elaboration of the instrumental design of LEADER and the NRNs in the upcoming funding period at both the European and national levels.
5. Analysis of the implementation process itself in terms of drivers and burdens from (at least two) perspectives:
a) the administration at different levels;
b) the potential beneficiaries.
6. Assessment of interaction between the formation and policy-implementation processes. Effects of the policy-making process on the implementation and vice-versa have to be identified (also during the implementation).
7. Assessment of the (potential) effects of the instruments’ implementation considering, in particular:
a) effects related to governance structures or networking (which are of special interest in this study);
b) further effects related to the objectives strived for, and/or related to special instrumental features (e.g. the integrated approach of LEADER).
8. Comprehensive comparison between the following dimensions: the instruments’
objectives, the instruments’ legal framework, the potential that the policy instruments theoretically offer, experiences made with the policy instruments in other implementation contexts, and the effects identified for the instruments’
implementation in Romania.
9. Drawing conclusions and formulating recommendations on governing the implementation process and on the instrumental design for using the policy instruments’ potential (more) effectively.
4.2.2 Animating the conceptual framework with a research agenda
Some of the conceptual steps mentioned above are addressed theoretically, while others are approached empirically. Differences in approaching the steps for the two policy instruments are shown in Table 4.1. A difference in methodological implications between the two policy instruments is that with LEADER, experiences were gained and documented within the formal programme evaluation and complementing research over two decades, while for the NRNs, a new instrument for all Member States, hardly any reports exist.
Moreover, the precursor of the NNUs, the LEADER+ Networking Units with some similarities in their instrumental design were hardly subject of the formal programme evaluation (Metis et al. 2010) or of studies.82 Therefore, for this study, data on first experiences made with the NRNs across the EU had to be collected empirically. After the empirical data collection, the official mid-term evaluation reports, which only cover the NRNs of four Member States, were published in 2010 (Table 4.2).
For the LEADER instrument, it can only partly be built upon experiences gained with LEADER in the former programme period, namely upon those referring to the key features of LEADER (Box 3.1). Reports on the programme's implementation from a technical/administrative standpoint have to be carefully checked, as the programme guidelines have changed and this kind of preparatory LEADER measure has been set up only for Bulgaria and Romania.
82 One exception is the examination of experiences with networking within LEADER+ (Duguet 2006), prepared by the staff of the European Leader+ Observatory Contact Point. In that study the role of the networking units in the LEADER implementation process is considered in slightly greater detail than in the formal programme evaluation.
Study Design and Research Framework 73 Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework for analysing the policy processes for LEADER and the NRN in
Romania
Note: a National priorities can be set and national objectives can be defined.
MS = Member State = Outline of policy processes = Effects
X Y = Comparison of X and Y = Interlinkages between Research activities = Conclusions
As a consequence of analysing two unpredictable implementation processes, the research design had to be continuously adapted to fulfil the requirements of the conceptual framework.83 Table 4.1 illustrates the conducted activities for approaching the conceptual steps for each policy instrument. The implementation procedure is assessed from the perspective of the administration and (potential) beneficiaries/rural actors at different points of time (Table 4.2). Data was collected in the early preparatory phase to assess the initial
83 Due to the unpredictable and heavily delayed implementation of both instruments in Romania the ambition of being close to the action became a particular challenge. An example is that instead of a survey among the members of the Romanian NRN (Research activity E), expert interviews with the members of the network’s coordination committee were originally planned. However, due to political tensions between some members of the network’s Coordination Committee and the MARD, this procedure was altered.
situation in 2008 (Research activities A1, A2, A3 and A5)84 and in 2010 (Research activities C, E and B2), either through a survey or a case study, or both.85
Table 4.1: Application of the conceptual framework - Contributing research activities
Conceptual Step Corresponding Research activity
LEADER NRN
1 Analysis of the regulatory framework of the policy instruments
Reviewing the regulatory documents (desk work)
Reviewing the regulatory documents (desk work) 2 Examination of the potential that the
policy instruments theoretically offer
State of the art of related theories (desk work)
State of the art of related theories (desk work)
3 Collecting experiences made with the implementation of the policy
instruments concerned in other implementation contexts
Reviewing the empirical literature (desk work)
Empirical work (RA: D)
4 Assessment of the conditions framing the implementation process
Literature review and complementing empirical work (RAs: B1, B2 (and A1, A2 and A4)
Literature review and complementing empirical work (RAs: B1, B2 (A4 and E, to a little extent A1 and A2)
5 Analysis of the implementation process itself from a technical point of view in terms of drivers and burdens
Empirical work (RAs: B1, B2; A1, A2 and C)
Empirical work (RAs: B1, B2 and E)
6 Assessment of reciprocal effects/
interaction between the policy-making and policy-implementation process
Empirical work (RAs: B1, B2 and C)
Empirical work (RAs: B1 and B2)
7 Assessment of the (potential) effects of the instruments’ implementation
Empirical work (RAs: A1, A2, A3, A4 and C)
Empirical work (RA: E; to a little extent B2)
8 Comprehensive comparison Theory/ Desk work Theory/ Desk work 9 Drawing conclusions and
recommendations for using the policy instruments’ potential (more)
effectively
Theory/ Desk work Theory/ Desk work
Note: RA = Research activity (the RAs listed below are detailed in Section 4.3)
A: Assessment of the initial situation B: Operation Analysis (OA) of the A1: Survey of potential Romanian LAGs agricultural administration
A2: Survey of DARDs B1: Short-term OA
A3: Case study on potential LAGs B2: Long-term OA
A4: Survey of Hungarian and German LAGs A5: Expert consultation
C: Case study on potential LAG D: Survey of National Network Units E: Survey of members of the Romanian National Rural Network
84 For outlining the initial situation for implementing the NRN, a survey conducted by the MARD at the end of 2007/ early 2008 could also be drawn on. The survey primarily assessed network members’ attributes and interests.
85 Indeed, case studies do only reflect – despite coping with complexity - a small part of the reality. Nevertheless, knowledge gained from case studies has its own convincing power (Scharpf 2000). Bearing in mind the challenges of assessing data on governance, social capital and networks presented in Chapter 2, a case-study approach is essential for assessing interpersonal relations and actor constellations, which is recommendable for profound statements on these issues. Complementing case studies with country-wide surveys allows one to assess the status quo of the implementation processes and its framing conditions, and thus discussing case study findings against a wider context.
Study Design and Research Framework 75 While for LEADER the preparatory phase finally switched over in the main implementation phase of at least one LEADER measure in 2010, the NRN activities had not started at the point of the second assessment. The perspective of the administration was additionally assessed by means of expert interviews and participatory observation in 2009 and 2010 (Research activities B1 and B2).
This study does not rely on one method of analysis. Instead, it addresses the research interests with a set of methods and theories, noteworthy are the underlying concept of governance and network theory, as well as Social Network Analysis (SNA), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and an adapted Standard Cost Model for calculating administrative costs.
The choice of the methods and their advantages and disadvantages for approaching the focal points of networking and governance structures are discussed in each section in the context of each concrete questions addressed. At this point, some overarching issues of the methodological conceptualisation of this study are discussed. During the process of conceptualisation, it was important to assess the dynamics underlying the formation of social capital and governance processes quantitatively without neglecting the normative, cognitive and behavioural dimensions, and without suffering from the disadvantage of qualitative approaches. Furthermore, the practical relevance of methods for enhancing the instruments’
implementation was an issue of great importance. Thus, for instance, when investigating tools to evaluate LEADER, the development of LAGs’ governance structures was initially assessed by means of SNA, while means of participatory observation for investigating governance processes was tested in the second case study (Research activities A3 and C). Generating practical recommendations was also one major reason for using MCDA in the elaboration process of an RDC functioning as an analytical instrument for tracing the outcomes of governance processes and proofing endogenous development, while at the same time being tested as a tool for participatory integrated planning approaches.
Further comments on the selection of research activities and methods or single elements thereof have to be made: Bearing in mind the possible influence that the historico-cultural context can have on the formation of partnerships and the development of governance structures, the first case study was conducted in the culturally Hungarian-marked part of Romania, and the second took place in a Romanian cultural area in the country. The potential relevance of cultural relations was also one reason for choosing Hungary as a country for examining the external relations of potential Romanian LAGs (Research activity A4), as will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 9.