Kein Folientitel

1
The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the
policy-making process Lessons learnt in the field
of information society David Osimo, IPTS (DG
JRC) (formerly at Regione Emilia-Romagna) Karsten
Gareis, empirica, Bonn Regional Benchmarking
Workshop, 20 June 2006, Bruxelles
The views expressed by the authors are not
necessarily those of the organization they belong
to
2
Background

• Two projects
• BISER (2001-2003)
• Development and piloting of a set of
  survey-derived indicators to be used for
  benchmarking regions in the Information Society
• Top down approach Indicators are developed based
  on conceptual framework, then discussed with
  regions
• UNDERSTAND (2004-2006)
• Agreement and application on a set of key
  indicators for benchmarking regions in the
  Information Society, on internet usage by
  individuals, e-business, e-government and
  broadband infrastructure
• Not developing new methodologies, but using
  existing ones eEurope, OECD, BISER, eBusiness
  Watch, Nordic Model questionnaire on e-government
• Bottom up approach Individual regions define the
  indicators they need for policy-making, then
  discuss with other regions to arrive at a core
  set to be applied across regions

3
The different meaning of indicators in different
policy contexts

• Benchmarking has a different meaning according to
  the institutional and political set-up where it
  is applied
• Example Lisbon Strategy / eEurope Action Plans
• Role of benchmarking measuring achievement of
  political targets (which are defined beforehand)
• Relevance of policy objectives (eEurope) is not
  questioned, but accepted as given
• Example UNDERSTAND
• No common policy framework and policy targets
  (policy agendas are too region-specific
  different political systems)
• Benchmarking can influence the definition of
  policy objectives themselves

4
The role of benchmarking in policy making
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Policy targets
Policy objectives
Policy targets
Policy challenge
Policy evaluation
Policy objectives
Policy objectives
Policy targets

• The measurable output and outcome of policy
  actions
• Benchmarking What is the current situation?

• Benchmarking Have targets been met?
• In case of failure, assessment of reasons
• Conclusions

• Translate challenges into more concrete concerns
• Basis for specification of policy actions

• The "mission statement"
• Broad area for activity and investigation
• Too broad to be directly measured

5
The role of benchmarking in policy making
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Policy targets
Policy objectives
Policy targets
Policy challenge
Policy evaluation
Policy objectives
Policy objectives
Policy targets

• The measurable output and outcome of policy
  actions
• Benchmarking What is the current situation?

• Benchmarking Have targets been met?
• In case of failure, assessment of reasons
• Conclusions

• Translate challenges into more concrete concerns
• Basis for specification of policy actions

• The "mission statement"
• Broad area for activity and investigation
• Too broad to be directly measured

6
The role of benchmarking in policy making
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Policy targets
Policy objectives
Policy targets
Policy challenge
Policy evaluation
Policy objectives
Policy objectives
Policy targets

• The measurable output and outcome of policy
  actions
• Benchmarking What is the current situation?

• Benchmarking Have targets been met?
• In case of failure, assessment of reasons
• Conclusions

• Translate challenges into more concrete concerns
• Basis for specification of policy actions

• The "mission statement"
• Broad area for activity and investigation
• Too broad to be directly measured

?
7
The different meaning of indicators in different
policy contexts
8
Future action

• A number of (case-)studies point towards
  important effects of ICT on regional development.
  
• Bellini et al. (2003) for Italy
• Raspe, van Oort and van der Laan (2005) for the
  Netherlands
• there is increasing evidence that diffusion
  reinforces the position of leading urban areas
  (Karlsson, 2004) and also multimodal development,
  (Raspe and van Oort, 2004)
• However, we still know little gt DG JRC/ IPTS is
  launching a study on these issues

9
Thank you for your attention!

• More information
• Please contact the authors at
• david.osimo_at_ec.europa.eu
• karsten.gareis_at_empirica.com
• Final version of paper available from authors.

Please visit www.understand-eu.net
www.biser-eu.com
http//fiste.jrc.es