natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Some of this qualitative assessment could have been better linked to other thematic studies undertaken, such as the thematic evaluation on RTD. 
Ngra av dessa kvalitativa bedmningar kunde ha knutits bttre till andra tematiska studier som gjorts, till exempel den tematiska studien om forskning och teknisk utveckling.
In the ToR, it is stated that: ÔA broad scoped literature review will be undertaken in order to identify key issues in the implementation of the Structural FundsŐ (8). 
I uppdragsbeskrivningen faststlls att en dokumentgranskning med bred inriktning kommer att utfras i syfte att identifiera nyckelfrgor i genomfrandet av strukturfonderna (8).
However, there are shortcomings in the way in which such implications are reported, and are linked to subsequent findings. 
Det finns dock brister i det stt varp sdana konsekvenser rapporteras och knyts till senare iakttagelser.
In the few cases where there is such integration with the assessment, the benefits on the quality of the report are clearly evident. 
I de f fall dr sdana uppgifter integreras med utvrderingen r frdelarna fr kvaliteten p rapporten uppenbara.
For example, the ex post assessment reports that the thematic evaluation on RTD notes that the focus of activities would be better directed at developing region specific innovation strategies to exploit existing RTD capacity, rather than based on perceived ÔTechnology GapsŐ. 
Till exempel rapporteras i efterhandsutvrderingen att det i den tematiska utvrderingen av forskning och teknisk utveckling str att verksamheterna br inriktas p att utveckla regionspecifika innovationsstrategier i syfte att utforska befintlig kapacitet inom forskning och teknisk utveckling snarare n p att avhjlpa vad som bedms vara ÓteknikbristerÓ.
The ex post study reports that this was so in a number of cases, with results being much more successful when focused on local strengths (9). 
I efterhandsutvrderingen rapporteras att detta skedde i ett antal fall och att resultaten var mycket bttre nr man fokuserade p lokal frmga (9).
This example clearly highlights the relevance of building on what other reports and studies have demonstrated, as emphasised in the criteria developed in the MEANS programme and its update, which was included as part of the ToR of this evaluation exercise (10). (5) Synthesis Report, p. 
Detta exempel lyfter tydligt fram det viktiga i att bygga p vad andra rapporter och studier har visat, vilket betonas i de kriterier som utvecklades inom Means-programmet och uppdateringen av detta program och som ingick som en del i uppdragsbeskrivningen fr detta utvrderingsarbete (10).
(6) To quote again from the study: ÔThe most effective mechanism for the creation and maintenance of jobs is argued to be direct support for productive investment, although as this takes no account of deadweight and substitution effects, its overall effectiveness cannot be judgedŐ. 
(6) I den sammanfattande rapporten str det att den mest ndamlsenliga mekanismen fr skapande och bevarande av arbetstillfllen psts vara direkt std till produktionsinvesteringar trots att deras vergripande ndamlsenlighet inte kan bedmas eftersom man d inte tar hnsyn till ddvikts-och substitutionseffekter.
(7) The implications of weak data and some general comments on this will be discussed in a later section. 
(7) Konsekvenserna av bristflliga uppgifter och ngra allmnna kommentarer om detta diskuteras lngre fram i denna rapport.
(8) ToR, p. 
(8) Uppdragsbeskrivningen, s.
(9) Synthesis Report, p. 
(9) Sammanfattande rapport s.
(10) ToR, p. 
(10) Uppdragsbeskrivningen, s.
C 302/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 12.12.2006 40. 
C 302/12 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 12.12.2006 40.
The national evaluations were seldom based on a formalised or quantitative analysis of effects. 
De nationella utvrderingarna grundades sllan p en formaliserad eller kvantitativ analys av effekter.
Furthermore, the national evaluators rarely used the results of quantitative analysis carried out by other parties. 
Dessutom anvnde de nationella utvrderarna sllan resultaten av kvantitativa analyser som utfrts av andra.
Evaluation of efficiency 41. 
Utvrdering av effektiviteten 41.
The aim of the Synthesis Report under this heading was the examination of the efficiency in the implementation of large projects supported in Objective 1 regions. 
Under denna rubrik i den sammanfattande rapporten granskas effektiviteten i genomfrandet av stora projekt som stddes i ml 1-regioner.
The analysis was based on a geographically and thematically representative sample of approximately 60 large projects (1). 
Analysen grundades p ett geografiskt och tematiskt representativt urval av omkring 60 stora projekt (1).
Efficiency is understood to refer to the effects being obtained at reasonable cost. 
Effektivitet skall tolkas som de effekter som uppns till rimlig kostnad.
ÔThe main objective is to establish unit costs, i.e. the cost per output achieved. 
Det huvudsakliga mlet r att upprtta enhetskostnader, det vill sga kostnad per uppndd output.
The analysis should also address the quality of the management of large projects by the final beneficiaries. 
Analysen br ven glla kvaliteten p de slutliga mottagarnas frvaltning av stora projekt.
At EU level, unit costs should be analysed across Objective 1 regions. 
P EU-niv br enhetskostnader analyseras i alla ml 1-regioner.
Significant differences in unit costs across regions should be explained where possible and a range of appropriate costs should be established, which may be used as the basis for benchmarking exercises in the futureŐ (2). 
Vsentliga skillnader i enhetskostnader ver regioner br frklaras dr s r mjligt och en rad lmpliga kostnader br faststllas, vilka kan anvndas som riktmrken i framtiden (2).
These objectives are relevant and form a critical element in the efficient management of projects across the EU. 
Dessa ml r relevanta och r avgrande fr en effektiv frvaltning ver hela EU.
However these objectives were largely not met by the ex post assessment. 
Dessa ml uppnddes dock i stor utstrckning inte av efterhandsutvrderingen.
This is admitted in the Synthesis Report, with the explanation that project managers found it virtually impossible to determine the individual component parts of the project and subsequently could not calculate unit costs (3). 
Detta medges i den sammanfattande rapporten med frklaringen att projektledarna fann det i princip omjligt att avgra vilka de enskilda ingende delarna i projektet var och drmed inte kunde berkna kostnader per enhet (3).
As a minimum, it should have been possible to arrive at comparable costs for typical outputs, e.g the cost per square metre of building a factory, or per kilometre of road built. 
Det borde tminstone ha varit mjligt att komma fram till en jmfrbar kostnad fr vanlig output, till exempel kostnaden per kvadratmeter i en fabrik som skall byggas, eller per kilometer vg som byggts.
Some partial results are presented in three tables dealing with road construction in Member States, environment projects in Spain and costs per job created in industrial projects (4). 
Vissa delresultat presenteras i de tre tabeller som handlar om vgbyggen i medlemsstater, miljprojekt i Spanien och kostnader per skapat arbetstillflle i industriprojekt (4).
The Synthesis Report reached firm conclusions about the timing of projects and respect for budget limits. 
I den sammanfattande rapporten dras bestmda slutsatser om tidsplaneringen av projekten och respekterandet av bud-getgrnserna.
These were, first, that only one third of the 60 projects reviewed were completed within the originally planned timescale, with over a third a year late. 
Fr det frsta konstateras att endast en tredjedel av de 60 granskade projekten hade avslutats inom den ursprungligen planerade tidsramen och att mer n en tredjedel var ett r frsenade.
Secondly, approximately two thirds of projects examined ran over budget, with 20 % costing over 30 % more than originally planned. 
Fr det andra verskred omkring tv tredjedelar av de granskade projekten budgeten och 20 % av dem kostade mer n 30 % mer n vad som ursprungligen var planerat.
However, the analysis is limited to a few general (1) Greater than 25 million euro for infrastructure and greater than 15 million euro for productive investment projects. (2) ToR, p. 
Analysen (1) Strre n 25 miljoner euro om det gllde infrastruktur och strre n 15 miljoner euro om det gllde produktionsinvesteringsprojekt. (2) Uppdragsbeskrivningen, s.
Furthermore, the relative efficiency of public private partnerships and of the tendering procedures employed were not evaluated. 
Vidare utvrderades inte den relativa effektiviteten i de offentlig-privata partnerskapen och i de upphandlingsfrfaranden som anvndes.
Evaluation of the impact of SFs 45. 
Utvrdering av strukturfondernas effekt 45.
The Synthesis Report claims that the primary aim of Structural Funds is to influence the long-run supply potential of the economy (6). 
I den sammanfattande rapporten hvdas att det frmsta mlet med strukturfonderna r att pverka ekonomins lngsiktiga utbudspotential (6).
These supply side effects work through a number of channels that are designed to: (a) increase investment in order to improve physical infrastructure as an input to private sector productive activity; (b) increase human capital, due to investment in training, as an input to private sector productive activity; and (c) channel public funding assistance to the private sector to stimulate investment, thus increasing factor productivity and reducing sectoral costs of production and of capital (7). 
Dessa utbudseffekter fungerar genom ett antal kanaler som r utformade fr att: a) ka investeringarna fr att frbttra den fysiska infrastrukturen och drmed bidra till den privata sektorns produktiva verksamhet, b) strka humankapitalet genom investeringar i fortbildning, fr att bidra till privata sektorns produktiva verksamhet, och c) kanalisera offentligt finan-sieringsstd till den privata sektorn fr att stimulera investeringar och drmed ka faktorproduktiviteten och minska sektorkostna-derna fr produktion och kapital (7).
The report goes on to discuss the importance of what are called positive externalities Ń Ôconditions where private firms enjoy the use of additional productive factors at no cost to them-selvesŐ, thereby improving the productivity and cost competitiveness of the economy. These considerations are relevant to an ex post assessment. 
I rapporten gr man vidare till att diskutera vikten av vad som kallas positiva externa effekter Đ villkor dr privata firmor fr anvnda ytterligare produktionsfaktorer utan ngon kostnad fr dem sjlva, och drigenom frbttrar ekonomins konkurrenskraft med avseende p produktivitet och kostnader.
However, private sector co-financing was excluded from the analysis because of uncertainties about its Ôdriving mechanismsŐ (8). 
Den privata sektorns medfinansiering ingick dock inte i analysen p grund av oskerheten kring dess ÓdrivkrafterÓ (8).
This limited approach leads to a severe understatement of the impact of certain expenditures in the Structural Funds by excluding one of the major long-term supply side effects. 
Detta begrnsade angreppsstt leder till en allvarlig undervrdering av effekten av vissa utgifter inom strukturfonderna genom att en av de stora lngsiktiga utbudseffekterna utesluts.
One clear demonstration of this is the example of a development company presented in the Synthesis Report (9) whose co financed expenditures have attracted significant additional private sector investment. 
Ett tydligt bevis p detta r exemplet med ett utvecklingsfretag som presenteras i den sammanfattande rapporten (9) vars medfinansierade utgifter har attraherat stora extra investeringar frn den privata sektorn.
Instead of focusing on the more directly discernible impact of SF expenditure on private sector investment, the study concentrates on attempting to assess the so-called externalities, with rather limited techniques of estimation as a result of a lack of studies providing measures of elasticities which are relevant to the regions under consideration. 
Istllet fr att fokusera p den mer direkt urskiljbara effekten av strukturfondsutgifterna p den privata sektorns investeringar inriktas utvrderingen p att frska bedma de s kallade externa effekterna, med ganska begrnsade uppskattningsmetoder som ett resultat av bristen p studier som ger elasticitetsmtt vilka r relevanta fr de regioner som beaktas.
(5) As noted above. (6) Synthesis Report, p. 
(5) Se ovan. (6) Sammanfattande rapport. s.
(8) ÔInclusionofprivatesectorco-financingisofquestionablevalueforan impact evaluation that is based on the use of a formal macro model and since considerable uncertainty and ambiguity surrounds the driving mechanisms behind the private sector CSF co-finance expenditures, we exclude them from our analysisŐ. 
(8) I den sammanfattande rapporten sgs att vrdet av att inkludera privata sektorns medfinansiering i en effektutvrdering baserad p anvndandet av en formell makromodell kan ifrgasttas, och att stor oskerhet och dubbeltydighet omgrdar drivkrafterna bakom den privata sektorns medfinansieringsutgifter inom gemenskapsstdramen varfr dessa utesluts ur analysen.
(9) UK-Speke Garston project; in this particular example, additional private sector investment of 223 million GBP was attracted, generating 4 600 jobs in direct employment. 
I detta enskilda exempel drog man till sig ytterligare investeringar frn den privata sektorn p 223 miljoner pund sterling, vilket genererade 4 600 arbetstillfllen i direkt sysselsttning.
204. 
204.
12.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/13 47. 
12.12.2006 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 302/13 47.
To assess the impact of the Structural Funds on economic and social cohesion, a macroeconomic modelling approach based on the HERMIN model was applied to four Member States (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) (1) as well as for the regions of the new German Lnder and Northern Ireland (2). 
Fr att bedma effekten av strukturfonderna nr det gller ekonomisk och social sammanhllning tillmpades ett frfarande baserat p en makroekonomisk modell, Hermin-modellen, p fyra medlemsstater (Grekland, Irland, Portugal och Spanien) (1) samt p regionerna i de nya tyska delstaterna och Nordirland (2).
This approach was intended to measure the impact of Objective 1 progammes in terms of the effects on GDP and employment. 
Avsikten med detta frfaringsstt var att mta ml 1-programmens inverkan i frga om effekterna p BNP och sysselsttning.
An alternative assessment scenario would be to use microeconomic data from projects to build up to the total or aggregate impact of the Structural Funds on a region or country basis. 
Ett alternativt bedmningsscenario skulle vara att anvnda mikroekonomiska uppgifter frn projekt fr att f fram den totala eller aggregerade effekten av strukturfonderna i en region eller ett land.
However, despite the use of standardised data requirements across Objective 1 regions, there are difficulties in collecting microeconomic data. 
Trots kravet p att standardiserade uppgifter skall anvndas i alla ml 1-regioner har det visat sig svrt att samla in mikroekonomiska uppgifter.
This results in attempts to measure impacts solely from macroeconometric models, giving rise to many restrictions and assumptions which, for the reasons set out below, can restrict the assessment significantly, thereby limiting the policy implications that can be derived. 
Detta resulterar i att man frsker mta effekt enbart utifrn makroekonometriska modeller, vilket innebr mnga begrnsningar och antaganden vilka, av de anledningar som beskrivs nedan, kan begrnsa bedmningen vsentligt, och drmed begrnsa de politiska konsekvenserna.
The principal difficulties identified with the specific application of the HERMIN macromodel used in the ex post assessment under review are: (a) The structure of the model puts too much emphasis on the manufacturing sector while the economies of most of the regions or countries under consideration have seen greater development in the past 10 years in traded market services, such as tourism and, in some cases, the financial sector. 
De strsta problemen som konstaterades med den srskilda tillmpningen av den makroekonomiska modellen Hermin som anvndes i den efterhandsutvrdering som granskas r fljande: a) Modellens struktur lgger alltfr stor vikt vid tillverkningsindustrin medan ekonomierna i de flesta av de underskta regionerna eller lnderna hade haft en kraftigare utveckling under de senaste tio ren inom handel med tjnster ssom turism och i vissa fall inom den finansiella sektorn.
The driving mechanisms of these services are different from manufacturing, which has become more susceptible to the impact of globalisation. 
Drivkrafterna i dessa tjnster skiljer sig t frn tillverkningsindustrin som har blivit mer knslig fr globaliseringens effekter.
The model used did not provide for such a consideration and there is little evidence in the report that this aspect has been recognised as a serious deficiency despite the fact that tourism is so important to the economies of quite a number of the regions concerned. (b) The model used is based on annual data starting in 1980. 
Med den modell som anvndes gick det inte att ta hnsyn till denna aspekt och det finns f bevis i rapporten p att detta har erknts som en allvarlig brist trots det faktum att turismen r s viktig fr ekonomierna i mnga av de berrda regionerna. b) Den modell som anvndes bygger p rliga uppgifter frn och med 1980.
However, due to the fast-changing structure of the regions concerned over the intervening time frame, structural instability of the parameters estimated may be a significant limitation of the macro model-based approach adopted. 
P grund av att de berrda regionernas struktur snabbt frndrats sedan dess kan strukturell instabilitet i de uppskattade parametrarna kraftigt begrnsa rckvidden fr den valda makroekonomiska modellen.
This aspect was also not taken into account. 
Denna aspekt beaktades inte heller.
(1) The four countries which qualify, in their totality, as Objective 1 regions. 
(1) De fyra lnder som i sin helhet r kvalificerade som ml 1-regioner.
(2) In the case of Italy the planned construction of a HERMIN model foreseen in the ToR, was not done due to Ôcontracting difficultiesŐ. 
(2) Nr det gller Italien utarbetades inte den Hermin-modell som freskrevs i uppdragsbeskrivningen p grund av Óupphandlingssvrighe-terÓ.
For the remaining regions, which did not have a HERMIN model available, a so-called Ôbottom-upŐ estimation was undertaken. (c) Use is made of planned rather than actual expenditures (3) which is more reasonably to be expected in an ex ante projection rather than in an ex post evaluation. (d) Impact estimates are significantly biased downwards due to the exclusion of the private sector co-financing from the model (see also paragraph 46) as well as the flow of private sector investment that results from the Structural Fund interventions. 
Nr det gller terstende regioner, som inte hade en Hermin-modell tillgnglig, gjordes en s kallad bottom-up-bedmning. c) Man anvnder planerade snarare n faktiska utgifter (3) vilket r mer rimligt att frvnta sig i en frhandsprognos n i en efterhandsutvrdering. d) I bedmningarna undervrderas effekten betydligt p grund av att modellen inte tar med den privata sektorns medfinansiering (se ven punkt 46) och inte heller fldet av investeringar frn den privata sektorn som r resultatet av strukturfondstgrder.
For example, if the SFs provide assistance in the building of a factory, the impact on the regionŐs economy is not limited to the construction of the building but relates also to the permanent jobs it gives rise to as a result of the investment by the private sector that takes place following the construction of the factory. (e) The impact that Structural Funds have in the long term on the stock of public infrastructure and human capital (positive externalities) plays a crucial role in assessing the impact of the Structural Funds in the Synthesis Report. 
Om strukturfonderna ger std till byggandet av en fabrik, till exempel, r effekten p regionens ekonomi inte endast begrnsad till uppfrandet av byggnaden utan handlar ocks om de fasta arbetstillfllen det ger upphov till som ett resultat av den privata sektorns investeringar efter det att fabriken har byggts. e) Strukturfondernas lngsiktiga effekt p den offentliga infrastrukturen och humankapitalet (positiva externa effekter) spelar en viktig roll i bedmningen av effekten av strukturfonderna i den sammanfattande rapporten.
The HERMIN model requires externality elasticities to be supplied from other specific studies. 
Hermin-modellen frutstter att uppgifter om de externa effekternas elasticitet skall komma frn andra specifika studier.
However, as these elasticities are not available for any of the relevant regions in the EU, use was made of empirical literature largely based on USA regions which, as noted within the Report itself, Ôis somewhat ambiguous about the appropriate magnitude of the externali-tiesŐ (4). 
Eftersom dessa elasticitetsmtt inte r tillgngliga fr ngon av de relevanta regionerna i EU anvndes empiriska dokument som i stor utstrckning byggde p regioner i USA. Dessa dokument r ngot oklara i frga om den lmpliga omfattningen p de externa effekterna, vilket ocks framgr av den sammanfattande rapporten (4).
As a consequence it is not clear to what extent the estimated impacts are based on judgement or on fact. (f) As regards additionality, the HERMIN model simulations compare the situations with and without CSF funding. 
Fljaktligen r det inte tydligt i vilken utstrckning de uppskattade effekterna bygger p bedmningar eller fakta. f) Nr det gller additionalitet jmfr man genom simulatio-nerna i Hermin-modellen situationerna med och utan finansieringen frn gemenskapsstdramen.
The scenario without CSF funding assumes that neither the EU funds nor the co-financed amounts are spent. 
I scenariot utan medel frn gemenskapsstdramen frutstts att varken EU-medlen eller de medfinansierade beloppen har anvnts.
The validity of such an assumption is debatable (5). 
Giltigheten i ett sdant antagande kan diskuteras (5).
The HERMIN model, in the manner in which it has been applied, thus appears unsuited to the task of estimating the effects of SF interventions in Objective 1 regions. 
Hermin-modellen, s som den har tillmpats, verkar allts inte lmpad fr uppgiften att uppskatta effekterna av strukturfondstgrder i ml 1-regioner.
(3) The Report states: ÔIdeally we should use the actual ex post realised CSF expenditures. 
(3) I rapporten anges att det idealiska vore att anvnda de faktiska utgifterna frn gemenskapsstdramen.
But these were not available for every country or region, disaggregated by priority and on an annual basis. 
Men dessa var inte tillgngliga fr varje land eller region, disaggregerade utifrn prioritet och p rlig basis.
In the interests of uniformity, we have used the planned CSF expenditure data as contained in the CSF 94 to 99 treaty documents. 
Fr att f enhetlighet anvndes de uppgifter om de planerade utgifterna inom gemenskapsstdramen som finns i de dokument som inrttar gemenskapsstdramen fr 1994Đ1999.
While these give a fairly accurate total for expenditure, they do not always give an accurate picture of the ex post scheduling of expenditures.Ő (Synthesis Report, p. 150). 
Dessa ger en tmligen korrekt totalsumma fr utgifter, men de ger inte alltid en korrekt bild av hur de faktiska utgifterna frdelades ver tiden. (Sammanfat-tande rapport s. 150.)