Multilevel governance is widely recognized as one of the striking features of local development policy implementation and management. In Lombardia, Italy, this framework has been applied in the context of European Regional Development Fund actions in order to increase the number and quality of projects. As a consequence the governance of regional development policies now has new meta-actors: the Programmi Integrati per lo Sviluppo Locale (PISL) aimed at promoting and soliciting projects to be submitted for funding by the regional government. In this paper we evaluate the impact of this new governance structure by estimating a discrete choice model over a sample of more than 6000 projects submitted for funding to the Regional Government of Lombardia. We find that projects within the context of the PISL have a slightly greater probability of being funded, although we cannot exclude the existence of adverse selection because we also find that those projects are, on average, of lower quality from a purely formal viewpoint. We finally argue in favour of this new governance structure, even though we identify some critical points to be addressed in the next planning period in order to enhance the effectiveness of development policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanPBeierM EBowenK R, 2002, “What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge”Personality and Individual Differences33587–605
2.
AlesinaATabelliniG, 2007, “Bureaucrats and politicians? Part I: a single policy task”American Economic Review97169–179
3.
ArmstrongHTaylorJ, 2000Regional Economics and Policy (Blackwell, Oxford)
4.
BanderaSBrugnoliACerianiA, 2006, “Strumenti di capacity building nell'ambito di politiche per lo sviluppo locale: i PISL (Programmi Integrati de Sviluppo Locale) in Lombardia”, paper presented at the XXVII Italian Regional Science Conference, Pisa, 12–14 October, http://www.inter-net.it/aisre/minisito_2006/cd_aisre/Paper/Bandera.pdf
5.
BarcaF, 2003, “Stato e sviluppo: un paradigma e un cantiere aperto”SR—Italian Journal of Regional Science317–36
6.
BarcaF, 2006Italia Frenata: Paradossi e Lezioni della Politica per lo Sviluppo (Donizelli, Rome)
7.
BardhanPMookherjeeD, 2006, “The rise of local governments: an overview”, Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective Eds BardhanP, MookherjeeD (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 1–52
8.
BeckerSIchinoA, 2002, “Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores”The Stata Journal71–19
BiaisBHiltonDMazurierKPougetS, 2005, “Judgemental overconfidence self-monitoring, and trading performance in an experimental financial market”Review of Economic Studies72287–312
11.
BianchiC, 2005, “L'evoluzione macroeconomica della regione Lombardia nell'ultimo decennio”, Lombardia 2005: Società, Governo e Sviluppo del Sistema Lombardo: Dieci Anni di Esperienze Ed. Istitutio Regionale di Ricerca della Lombardia (Guerini and Associati, Milan) pp 1–17
12.
BobbioL, 2000, “Produzione de politiche a mezzo di contratti nella pubblica amministrazione Italiana”Stato e Mercato58111–141
13.
CameronA CTrivediP K, 2005Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York)
14.
CartocciR, 2007Mappe del Tesoro: Atlante del Capitale Sociale in Italia (Il Mulino, Bologna)
15.
CasavolaPUtiliF, 2002, “Promozione di partnership locali per incoraggiare lo sviluppo locale: una valutazione preliminare dei patti territoriali”Sviluppo Locale93–30
16.
CersosimoDWollebD, 2006Economie dal Basso (Donzelli, Rome)
17.
CiaffiA, 2001, “Multi-level governance in Italy: the case of Marche”Regional and Federal Studies11115–146
18.
CulpepperP D, 2004, “Institutional rules, social capacity, and the stuff of politics: experiments of collaborative governance in France and Italy”, WP 2004/06, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, http://cadmus.ive.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/2748/1/O4_06.pdf
19.
Formez, 2005, “Atlante dei progetti territoriali integrati: regione Lombardia”, Centro di Formazione Studi, Rome, http://sviluppolocale.formez.it
20.
GlaeserE LSacerdoteB IScheinkmanJ A, 2003, “The social multiplier”Journal of the European Economic Association1345–353
21.
GovernaFSaloneC, 2005, “Italy and European spatial policies: polycentrism, urban networks, and local innovation practices”European Planning Studies13265–283
22.
GualiniE, 2003, “Challenges to multi-level governance: contradictions and conflicts in the Europeanization of Italian regional policy”Journal of European Public Policy10616–636
23.
GualiniE, 2004Multi-level Governance and Institutional Change: The Europeanization of Regional Policy in Italy (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
HoogheLMarksG, 2003, “Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance”American Political Science Review97233–243
26.
IRER, 2004, “La programmazione territoriale negoziata: strumenti, valutazione delle esperienze lombarde e internazionali, benchmarking”, research report, Istituto Regionale de Ricerca della Lombardia, Via Copernico 38, 20125 Milan
27.
MagnattiPRamettaFTrigiliaCViestiG, 2005Patti Territoriali i Lezioni per lo Sviluppo (Il Mulino, Bologna)
28.
MarksG, 1992, “Structural policy in the European Community”, Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community Ed. SbragiaA (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC) pp 191–224
29.
MartinezS DSwankO H, 2006, “A simple model of self-assessments”, DP TI 2006–010/1, Tinbergen Institute
30.
OstromE, 1998, “A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action”American Political Science Review921–22
31.
PicchierriA, 2002, “Concertation and local development”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26689–706
32.
PikeARodriguez-PoseATomaneyJ, 2006Local and Regional Development (Routledge, Oxford)
33.
PutnamRLeonardiRNanettiR, 1993Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradition in Modern Italy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
