Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2017, 65(3), 1065-1074 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201765031065

The Technical Efficiency of Local Action Groups: a Czech Republic Case Study

Iveta Vrabková1, Pavel Šaradín2
1 Department of Public Economics at VŠB - Technical University of Ostrava, Sokolská třída 33, 701 21 Ostrava, Czech Republic
2 Department of Politics and European Studies, Palacky University, Křížkovského 12, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic

Local Action Groups (LAGs) represent a dynamic platform for inter-municipal cooperation in Europe. Their principal advantages include EU funding and the capacity to generate economic returns and stimulate the development of local communities. The methodology used for the evaluation of the performance of LAGs is defined by the EU on the one hand and by national authorities on the other. Furthermore, there are an entire array of evaluation tools and academic experiments available. The present paper does not aim at a comprehensive evaluation of LAGs, but instead only examines the technical efficiency of LAGs. Using the Czech Republic as an example, the paper introduces an evaluation tool to measure the technical efficiency of LAGs and describes how it can be applied. The adoption of this tool is seen as a means of improving one of the parameters of the performance of LAGs.

Keywords: LEADER, Local Action Groups, technical efficiency
Grants and funding:

This work was supported by the Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness under Grant No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0296; and the Czech Science Foundation under No. 14-6831S; and the framework of the Faculty of Arts Palacky University) Foundation for Research Activities.

Prepublished online: July 3, 2017; Published: May 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vrabková, I., & Šaradín, P. (2017). The Technical Efficiency of Local Action Groups: a Czech Republic Case Study. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(3), 1065-1074. doi: 10.11118/actaun201765031065
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ABDOURAHMANE, T., BRAVO-URETA, B. E. and RIVAS, T. E. 2001. Technical efficiency in developing country agriculture: a meta-analysis. Agricultural Economics, 25: 235-243. Go to original source...
    2. ARABATZIS, G., AGGELOPOULOS, S. and TSIANTIKOUDIS, S. 2010. Rural development and LEADER+ in Greece: Evaluation of local action groups. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 8: 302-307.
    3. COOPER, W. W., SEIFORD, L. M. and TONE, K. 2007. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. New York: Springer. Go to original source...
    4. DEBREU, G. 1951. The Coefficient of Resource Utilization. Econometrica, 19: 273-292. DOI: 10.2307/1906814 Go to original source...
    5. DENTERS, B., GOLDSMITH, M., LADNER, A. et. al. 2014. Size and Local Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    6. DELÍN, M. 2012. The role of farmers in local action groups: The case of the national network of the local action groups in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics, 58: 433-442. Go to original source...
    7. EGGERS, J., METTEPENNINGEN, E. and BECKMANN, V. 2007. Assessing the Efficiency of Local Action Groups and Auctions for Designing and implementing agrienvironmental Measures in the EU - Results from an Expert Survey. Paper presented at the 47th Conference of the GEWISOLA ant he 17th annual conference of the ÖGA, Freising/Weihenstephan, Germany, Sept. 26-28. Available at: http://oega.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Tagung/2007/07_eggers_mettepenningen.pdf. [Accesed: 2016, May 15].
    8. FARREL, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Series A, 120(3): 253-290. DOI: 10.2307/2343100 Go to original source...
    9. FURMANKIEWICZ, M. and MACKEN-WALSH, Á. 2016. Government within governance? Polish rural development partnerships through the lens of functional representation. Journal of Rural Studies, 46: 12-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.004 Go to original source...
    10. GRIEVE J. and WENSPACH U. 2010. Capturing impacts of Leader and of Measures to Improve Quality of Life in Rural Areas. Brussels: European Communities.
    11. GRIGSBY, W. J. 2001. Community vitality: Some conceptual considerations. Rural Development Paper no. 6. The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. Available at: http://aese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp6.pdf. [Accesed: 2014, December 15].
    12. HOLLINGSWORTH, B. and PEACOCK, S. J. 2008. Efficiency Measurement in Health and Health Care. London: Routledge. Go to original source...
    13. JABLONSKÝ, J. and DLOUHÝ, M. 2004. Modely hodnocení efektivnosti produkčních jednotek. Prague: Professional Publishing.
    14. KERÄNEN, H. 2003. Self-evaluation Workbook for Local Action Groups. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/library/evaluations/Selfevaluation_workbook_for_LAGs.pdf. [Accessed: 2014, December 12].
    15. KRIEVINA, A., LEIMANE, I. and MELECE, L. 2015. Analysis of economic aspects of LEADER projects in Latvia. Economic Science For Rural Development, 39: 164-175.
    16. MIDMORE, P., LANGSTAFF, L., LOWMAN, S., et al. 2008. Qualitative Evaluation of European Rural Development Policy: Evidence from comparative case studies. Paper presented at the 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, August 26-29, Ghent, Belgium. Available at: http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/44434/2/439.pdf. [Accesed: 2016, May 11].
    17. PAVLÍKOVÁ, G. 2007: Program LEADER ČR - nástroj pro rozvoj venkova. Praha: ČZU.
    18. PECHROVÁ, M. 2015a. Impact of the rural development programme subsidies on the farms' inefficiency and efficiency. Agricultural Economics, 61: 197-204. Go to original source...
    19. PECHROVÁ, M. 2015b. Vliv dotací z Programu rozvoje venkova na technickou efektivnost příjemců. Dissertation thesis. Praha: ČZU, Provozně ekonomická fakulta. Available at: https://www.pef.czu.cz/dl/45888. [Accesed: 2016, September 16].
    20. PECHROVÁ, M. and BOUKALOVÁ, K. 2015. Differences among Czech local action groups in using selected principles of LEADER. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 46: 41-48. DOI: 10.1515/sab-2015-0015 Go to original source...
    21. SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY. 2015. MAS jako nástroj spolupráce obcí pro efektivní chod úřadů.
    22. SONGSRIROTE, N. and SINGHAPREECHA, C. 2007. Technical efficiency and its determinants on conventional and certified organic yasmine rice farms in Yosothon Province. Thammasat Economic Journal, 25: 96-133.
    23. SVOBODOVÁ, H. 2015. Do the Czech Local Action Groups Respect the LEADER Method? Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun., 63: 1769-1777. [Online] Available at: https://http://acta.mendelu.cz/63/5/1769/. [Accesed: 2016, January 20]. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201563051769 Go to original source...
    24. TRANTINOVÁ, M. 2015. Identifikace úspěchů a neúspěchů naplňování vybraných principů leader s posouzením, proč k úspěchu či neúspěchu dochází. Praha: ÚZEI. Available at: http://nsmascr.cz/content/uploads/2015/08/ivp1291_trantinova.pdf. [Accesed: 2016, April 10].

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content