Monitoring and evaluating the CAP: a (post-) exceptionalist policy arrangement?

Figures & data

Table 1. Density of institutions and ideas (the boldness of the type of density reappears in the Figures 1 and 2 below).

Authority Specificity	High	Low
High	High density	Low density
Low	Medium density	Low density

Table 2. Measurement of the dimensions of a policy arrangement.

Dimensions
Institutions	Ideas	Actors / Interests	Policy (specific for M&E)
- Which responsibilities are allocated to actors to take decisions?	- What function should and can M&E have in policy-making?	- How does (the use of) M&E affect actors’ material or political position?	- When will M&E take place? - What questions, criteria and data will be used? - How and when will findings be presented?

Table 3. Measurement of the density of institutions and ideas.

	Authority	Specificity
Institutions	Are they formalized in law or reflected in established norms? Yes = high / No = low	What room for maneuver (discretion) do they provide?
Ideas	Are they generally accepted / taken for granted? Yes = high / No = low	What room for maneuver (discretion) do they provide?

Figure 1. Case-specific expectations about the relationship between different dimensions of the three policy arrangements (the bold texts indicates the density of the dimensions (see also Table 1); the thickness of the lines shows the expected impact (the bolder, the greater)).

Figure 2. The relation between the general M&E, broader CAP, and specific CAP M&E policy arrangements.