IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v6y2010i03p377-399_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective

Author

Listed:
  • THEESFELD, INSA
  • SCHLEYER, CHRISTIAN
  • AZNAR, OLIVIER

Abstract

Ex-ante impact assessment of agricultural, environmental, and rural policies has become an integral part of political decision-making processes in the European Union. While a variety of agri-environmental modelling tools exists, ex-ante policy assessment tools capturing the institutional dimension are rare and need to be improved. In this paper, we introduce a standardized procedure for ex-ante modelling institutional aspects for policy implementation: the ‘Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment’ (PICA). PICA has been designed as an explorative and flexible, yet formalized methodology that enables policy-makers to identify, at an early stage, potential institutional incompatibilities. After relating PICA to relevant approaches for policy assessment, we elaborate on its four distinct steps, use a core element of the EU Nitrate Directive to illustrate its function, and then provide model validation by means of a test case.

Suggested Citation

  • Theesfeld, Insa & Schleyer, Christian & Aznar, Olivier, 2010. "The procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 377-399, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:03:p:377-399_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137410000056/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schleyer, Christian & Theesfeld, Insa, 2011. "Agrar- und Umweltpolitiken aus institutioneller Sicht: eine ex-ante Methode zur Politikbewertung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(03), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Swallow, Kimberly A. & Swallow, Brent M., 2015. "Explicitly integrating institutions into bioeconomic modeling:," IFPRI discussion papers 1420, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Schleyer, Christian & Theesfeld, Insa, 2011. "Agrar- und Umweltpolitiken aus institutioneller Sicht: eine ex-ante Methode zur Politikbewertung," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 60(3).
    4. Niyazmetov, Davron & Soliev, Ilkhom & Theesfeld, Insa, 2021. "Ordered to volunteer? Institutional compatibility assessment of establishing agricultural cooperatives in Uzbekistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Buchenrieder, Gertrud & Dufhues, Thomas & Theesfeld, Insa & Nuchanata, Mungkung, 2017. "Participatory local governance and cultural practices in Thailand," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3, pages 1-19.
    6. Sorge, Stefan & Mann, Carsten & Schleyer, Christian & Loft, Lasse & Spacek, Martin & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kluvankova, Tatiana, 2022. "Understanding dynamics of forest ecosystem services governance: A socio-ecological-technical-analytical framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    7. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff & Moritz Maack, 2013. "The impact of price floors on farmland investments: a real options based experimental analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(35), pages 4872-4882, December.
    8. Mawhood, Rebecca & Gross, Robert, 2014. "Institutional barriers to a ‘perfect’ policy: A case study of the Senegalese Rural Electrification Plan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 480-490.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:03:p:377-399_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.