DISPLACEMENT EFFECTS OF LATVIAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2007-2013
Last modified: 05.06.2017
Abstract
Periodic evaluation of EU Member States Rural Development Programme (RDP) specific policy interventions is considered crucial in policy development. The main reasons for the evaluation of specific policy interventions are the assessment of a programme’s impact, the improvement of programme management and administration, identification of necessary improvements in the delivery of interventions and meeting the accountability. The core question to be answered in programme evaluation is whether the stated objectives are accomplished by particular intervention (support or „treatment” provided to programme participants). The main problem in the process of evaluation is the assessment of the counterfactual outcome by modelling the situation where treatment is absent. The counterfactual outcome has to be estimated by statistical methods as it is usually not observed. General equilibrium effects occur when a programme affects units other than its participants. The most important possible impacts are the substitution effect and the displacement effect. Displacement effects are unplanned and indirect. They usually play a more important role in the evaluation at the programme level than in the evaluation of RDP individual measures. Displacement effect is the programme effect that occurs in a programme area at expense of another area. It takes place if farms located in one geographical area, which is not a subject to RD support, becomes adversely affected by a support provided to farms located in another geographically area. The existing study provides an assessment of the displacement effects on the employment in unsupported units at the programme level after the net effects on the employment calculated at the measure level are aggregated over the entire programme.
Keywords
References
[1] S. Becker and A. Ichino, “Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores,” The Stata Journal. 2, pp. 358-377, 2002.
[2] L. Calmfors, “Active Labour Market Policy and Unemployment: A Framework for the Analysis of Crucial Design Features,” OECD Economic Studies, 1994, 22, pp. 8-47.
[3] R. Dehejia and S. Wahba, “Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, pp. 151-161, DOI: 10.3386/w6829, 2002.
[4] J.J. Heckman, H. Ichimura, J. Smith, and P. Todd, “Characterizing selection bias using experimental data,” Econometrica. 66(5), pp. 1017-1098. DOI: 10.2307/2999630, 1998.
[5] P.W. Holland, “Statistics and causal inference (with discussion),” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, pp. 945-970, DOI: 10.2307/2289064, 1986.
[6] G.W. Imbens, “Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review,” The Review of Economics and Statistics. 86, pp. 4-29, DOI: 10.1162/003465304323023651, 2004.
[7] N. Mantel and W. Haenszel, “Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), pp. 719-748, DOI: 10.1093/jnci/22.4.719, 1959.
[8] J. Michalek, “Quantitative tools for ex-post evaluation of EU RD programmes,” in Advanced-Eval. Working Paper Series, University of Kiel, April 2007. http://www.advanced-eval.eu.
[9] PCM, “Ex-post evaluation of the SAPARD programme in the Slovak Republic. Final Report,” in P.C.M. Group, December 2007.
[10] A. Pufahl, and Ch. Weiss, “Evaluating the effects of farm programs: results from propensity score matching,” in Department of Economics Working Paper Series 113, Wien: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, 2007.
[11] P.R. Rosenbaum and D.B. Rubin, “The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,” Biometrika, 70, 41- 55, DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41, 1983.
[12] P.R. Rosenbaum, Observational Studies. New York: Springer, 2nd edition, 2002.
[13] A. Roy, “Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings,” Oxford Economic Papers, 3, pp. 135-146, 1951.
[14] D.B. Rubin, “Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, pp. 688-701. DOI: 10.1037/h0037350, 1974.
[15] J. Smith, “A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies,” Schweiz, Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, 2000, 136, pp. 1-22.
