ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS IN LATVIA

Authors

Keywords:

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); cohesion policy; EU Structural Funds; investment; performance evaluation; relative performance; stakeholder theory; sustainability; utility.

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to develop an integrated methodology for assessing the utility of European Union structural funds investments, combining the theory of relative utility, Utilization-Focused Evaluation and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, considering the theory of stakeholders. The tasks of the study include identifying and classifying stakeholders, defining criteria and alternatives, creating a hierarchy of dominance, performing pairwise comparisons and calculating the final utility assessment. The methodology is based on a combined approach: determining the weights of stakeholders, calculating AHP priorities and the Vargas formula for the final synthesis. The data were obtained in an expert survey, where each expert represented a cluster of stakeholders. The results show that in Latvia for the EU structural funds planning period 2021-2027, the priorities «A More Social and Inclusive Europe» and «A Greener Europe» are prioritized, while «Just Transition Fund» and «A Europe Closer to Citizens» are the lowest. The original contribution is the development of an integrated evaluation model that combines AHP with a relative utility approach and stakeholder weighting, providing a balanced and practical tool for cohesion investment decisionmaking.

JEL: C44; H54; O22; Q01; R58.

Author Biographies

Liene AMANTOVA-SALMANE, Riga Technical University Rezekne Academy, Rezekne, Latvia. 

PhD student, Economic and Governance center

Iveta MIETULE, Riga Technical University Rezekne Academy, Rezekne, Latvia.

Doctor of Science (Economics), Professor, Economic and Governance center

References

Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Gabriel, K. P. (2020). Understanding employee responses to COVID-19: a behavioral corporate social responsibility perspective. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 18(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2020-1053

Akkaya, M. (2021). Utility: Theories and models. In B.A. Mercangöz (Eds.) Applying Particle Swarm Optimization. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science (Vol. 306; pp. 3–14). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70281-6_1

Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003). The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6

Bachtler, J., Polverari, L., Taylor, S., Ashcroft, B., & Swales, K. (2000). Methodologies used in the evaluation of the effectiveness of European structural funds: A comparative assessment. European Policies Research Centre. https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/methodologies-used-in-theevaluation-of-the-effectiveness-of-euro

Capello, R., Ciappei, S., & Lenzi, C. (2024). EU Cohesion Policies and interregional inequalities in disruptive times. European Urban and Regional Studies, 32(2), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764241284416

Ccatamayo-Barrios, J.-H., Huamán-Romaní, Y.-L., Seminario-Morales, M.-V., Flores-Castillo, M.-M., Gutiérrez-Gómez, E., Carrillo-De la cruz, L.-K., de la Cruz-Girón, K.-A. (2023). Comparative analysis of AHP and TOPSIS multicriteria decision-making methods for mining method selection. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 10(5), 1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.100516

Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre. (2020). National Development Plan of Latvia for 2021–2027. https://www.mk.gov.lv/en/media/15165/download

Di Foggia, G., Arrigo, U., & Beccarello, M. (2025). Evolution and theoretical implications of the utility concept. Economies, 13(10), Article 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13100283

Duleba, S., & Blahota, I. (2025). Optimizing stakeholder weights in group AHP for consensus creation, a contribution to the MAMCA methodology. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-025-06943-8

Elhakim, A. (2025). The effectiveness of using participatory evaluation in enhancing institutional performance: A case study from the United Arab Emirates. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1596743. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1596743

European Commission. (2021). Better Regulation Guidelines (Сommission Staff Working Document). https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf

European Commission. (2022). Partnership Agreement with Latvia 2021–2027. Partnership Agreements on EU funds 2021-2027. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/partnership-agreement-latvia-2021-2027_en

European Commission. (2024). Evaluations. Directorate-General for EU regional and urban policy. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/evaluations_en

European Commission. (2025) Study to support the mid-term evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2021-2027 financed by the ERDF, Cohesion Fund and JTF (Final report). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2776/0575914

Grozdić, V., & Demko Rihter, J. (2023). Economic evaluation of investment projects: Determining the key factors for final investment decision. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 21(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.4335/21.1.45-70(2023)

Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F., & Wintle, B. C. (2018). A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12857

Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336– 14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143

Koudoumakis, P., Botzoris, G., & Protopapas, A. (2022). Cohesion policy evaluation: Guidelines for selection of appropriate methods. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 14(5), 1062–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12524

Mankiw, N. G. (2021). Principles of economics (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Mascena, K. M. C., Santos, F. V., & Stocker, F. (2021). Prioritizing stakeholders in project management: Application of the multicriteria hierarchy analysis method – AHP. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 6(1), Article e195. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2021.v6i1.195

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105

Molica, F., & Santos, A. M. (2025). Mapping uncharted territory: Research gaps in EU cohesion policy from a policy making perspective. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 12(1), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2025.2514503

Munien, I., & Telukdarie, A. (2025). Updating neoclassical economics with contemporary conceptions of homo economicus: A bibliometric analysis. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1123–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02007-4

O’Hagan, A. (2019). Expert knowledge elicitation: Subjective but scientific. The American Statistician, 73(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518265

Parada Contzen, M., & Parada Daza, J. R. (2023). On the weighting of homo economicus and homo virtus in human behaviour. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 664. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599- 023-02142-7

Patton, M. Q., & Campbell Patton, C. E. (2021). Utilization focused evaluation (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Pegan, A., & Lovec, M. (2025). Public communication and strategic planning: The case of EU cohesion policy. Journal of European Integration, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2025.2537360

Raman, A., Altalbawy, F. M. A., Ali, A., Vora, T., Alkhayyat, A., Yogi, K. S., Sapaev, I. B., Dhaliwal, A. S., Singh, A., & Shafieezadeh, M. M. (2025). Enhancing net zero decarbonization strategies: A comparative analysis with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Low Carbon Technologies, 20, 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctaf023

Rey, L., & Fortin, A. (2023). Participatory evaluation, deliberation and democracy. In F. Varone, S. Jacob, & P. Bundi (Eds.) Handbook of public policy evaluation (pp. 132–153). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800884892.00017

Saaty, T. L. (2001). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In D.L. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G.A. Mendoza & M. Pesonen (Eds.) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making (1st ed.; pp. 15-35). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2

Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2001). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (1st ed.; pp. 15–35). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1665-1

Scala, N. M., Rajgopal, J., Vargas, L. G., & Needy, K. L. (2016). Group decision making with dispersion in the analytic hierarchy process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9445-7

Šostar, M., Pandas, A., & Candor, A. (2025). The impact of EU projects on sustainable local development: A stakeholder perspective (Conference paper).

In S. Kot, B. Khalid, A. ul Haque (Eds.) New Challenges of the Global Economy for Business Management. EEEU 2024. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics (pp. 775–790). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-4116-1_49

Takemura, K. (2019). Psychophysics and sociophysics – Historical and future perspective on decision research. Journal of Japan Society of Kansei Engineering, 17(3), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.5057/kansei.17.3_122

Vargas, R. V. (2010). Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to select and prioritize projects in a portfolio (Conference paper). In PMI Global Congress 2010 – North America. Washington, DC. https://www.pmi.org/learning/ library/analytic-hierarchy-process-prioritize-projects-6608

Wang, Y., Wang, L., & Keller, L. R. (2015). Discounting over subjective time: Subjective time perception helps explain multiple discounted utility anomalies. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(4), 445–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.08.006

Received: October 28, 2025.

Reviewed: November 21, 2025.

Accepted: December 11, 2025.

Downloads

Published

31.12.2025

How to Cite

AMANTOVA-SALMANE, Liene, and Iveta MIETULE. “ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS IN LATVIA”. Journal of European Economy, vol. 24, no. 4, Dec. 2025, pp. 598-19, https://jeej.wunu.edu.ua/index.php/enjee/article/view/1891.

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 4 (2025): JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN ECONOMY

Section

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).