| abstract
| - Policy making consists of a series of steps comprising, among others, the formation of objectives, the choice and implementation of appropriate policy options and the assessment of the effects/impacts of the implemented options. The choice of policy options is generally based on what can be expected in terms of how well a policy objective can be achieved. These expectations can be derived from theory and from experience with similar cases. Obviously, there could be differences between the actually observed effects (effectiveness) and the theoretically expected effects (efficacy). Moreover, a policy cannot be effective without being efficacious, while, conversely, a policy option can be efficacious without being effective or, at least, underachieve in terms of meeting its target. In this context, there is increasing awareness that the different environmental policies on the EU and national level, strongly interact with each other, producing either synergetic outcomes regarding efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness (“3Es”) or potential negative impacts on the three pillars of sustainability. Efficacy The efficacy of a policy refers to its anticipated, i.e. theoretic potential to produce a desired effect or beneficial change. Efficacy thus provides information on the general suitability of a policy or measure to reach a specific goal. Its analytical perspective is thus ex-ante because its primary purpose is to obtain knowledge on the effects an intervention may have in the future. The assessment of efficacy can however be based on empirical approaches that are based on past experience (ex-post) or theoretic/context-based approaches (ex-ante) or a combination of both. Effectiveness While efficacy aims to demonstrate that in principle a mea¬sure is able to achieve the desired effect, an effectiveness proof shows that the effect can indeed be achieved by the measure under respectively prevailing circumstances. The effectiveness of a policy is therefore determined by the extent to which it produces a desired impact in a specific context, e.g. on the national level. Effectiveness is thus often of empirical, ex-post, and – where possible – quantitative nature. However, when no ex-post determination of effectiveness is possible, an ex-ante approach may have to be used. Ex-ante approaches may include economic assessments, context-analysis, or intervention theory-based approaches. Efficiency A policy is more efficient if a specific output or impact is realized with fewer resources or when more output is realised with a less than proportionate increase in the resources used. This description of efficiency refers to cost-effectiveness, which raises the basic question whether the results justify the resources needed. Efficiency as a cost-benefit criteria focuses on the question whether benefits of an option are worth the costs of the option. The efficiency of a given (set of) policy instrument(s) weighs its real or expected benefits against its associated actual (ex-post) or expected (ex-ante) costs. Efficiency can generally be assessed ex-post, but it is also common practice to estimate efficiency ex-ante. In the latter case, however, unforeseen, context-specific, factors may in reality lead to a higher or lower efficiency, which justifies an additional ex-post assessment. Interplay between “3Es” As explained above, efficacy expresses the anticipated, theoretical potential of a policy to reach a desired effect. Therefore, in principle, a policy cannot be effective without being efficacious. In figure (right), this is shown by the non-applicability of a situation in which a policy is effective and efficient but not efficacious. Conversely, a policy option can be efficacious without being effective or, at least, underachieve in terms of meeting its target. The challenge in this case is to explain the deviation between theoretically expected and actually observed achievement. If in such a situation the effectiveness is low (but higher than 0) but the incurred effort or cost even lower, it can be argued that the policy is efficient despite being essentially ineffective. Such a policy could then be considered to be viable albeit essentially fruitless. If a policy is effective and efficacious but the achieved result could have been achieved with fewer resources, then we may consider this policy option as inefficient (‘wasteful’). Eventually, only in those cases where efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency coincide, a policy can be assessed as being in accordance with the “3Es” and thereby successful. A more holistic understanding of the interaction of different policies is provided by the project “APRAISE - Assessment of Policy Impacts on Sustainability in Europe”, started in October 2011 and carried out under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Commission.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)