Advertisement

Hague Journal on the Rule of Law

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 199–217 | Cite as

The EU’s Losing Battle Against Corruption in Bulgaria

  • Sabina Pavlovska-Hilaiel
Article

Abstract

Twenty-five years after the European Union identified high levels of corruption as a top issue to be addressed in Bulgaria, the country remains the most corrupt member state. This article asks why despite strong conditionality before accession in 2007 and a specially tailored cooperation and verification mechanism (CVM), the EU has been unsuccessful in effectively assisting management of corruption in Bulgaria. The article focuses on the CVM and argues that since Bulgaria’s accession in 2007, external pressure from the EU is a necessary but insufficient condition for change. The EU needs civil society organizations (CSOs) to be an empowered and trustworthy domestic partner, in order for the CVM to achieve the rule of law in Bulgaria. The main finding is that the EU has set itself up for failure even before it established the CVM, because it did not nourish an domestically active, strong and pro-EU CSOs.

Keywords

Rule of law Civil society Europeanization Post-communism Socialization Corruption 

References

  1. Bauer M (2002) The EU ‘partnership principle’: still a sustainable governance device across multiple administrative arenas? Public Adm 80:769–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börzel T, Buzogány A (2010) Governing EU accession in transition countries: the role of non-state actors. Acta Polit 45(1):158–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börzel T, van Hullen V (2014) State-building and the European Union’s fight against corruption in the southern Caucasus: why legitimacy matters. Governance 27(4):613–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruszt L (2008) Multi-level governance—the eastern versions: emerging patterns of regional developmental governance in the new member states. Reg Fed Stud 18(5):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulgarian Center for Non-for-Profit Law (2013) A handbook on non-state social service delivery. http://www.bcnl.org/en/articles/1068-a-handbook-on-nonstate-social-service-delivery-models.html
  6. Center for the Study of Democracy (2015) Corruption reloaded: assessment of southeast Europe. http://seldi.net/publications/publications/anti-corruption-reloaded-assessment-of-southeast-europe/. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  7. Center for the Study of Democracy Report (2009) Crime without punishment: countering corruption and organized crime in Bulgaria, Sofia. ISBN: 978-954-477-158-4. http://csd.bg
  8. Center for the Study of Democracy Report (2010) Civil society in Bulgaria: trends and risks, Sofia Bulgaria. ISBN: 978-954-477-164-5. http://csd.bg
  9. Commission of the European Union (1997) Commission Opinion on Bulgaria’s Application for Membership of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimitrova A (2010) The new member states of the EU in the aftermath of enlargement: do new European rules remain empty shells? J Eur Public Policy 17(1):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimitrova A, Buzogány A (2013) Post-accession policy-making in Bulgaria and Romania: can non-state actors use EU rules to promote better governance? JCMS. J Common Mark Stud 52:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimitrova-Grajzl V (2007) The great divide revisited: Ottoman and Habsburg legacies on transition. Kyklos 60(4):539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edgren G (2015) (Donorship, Ownership, and Partnership) Issues arising from four SIDA studies of donor recipient relations. http://www.oecd.org/derec/sweden/35206145.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2015
  14. Endre S (2002) The bad, the worse, and the worst: guesstimating the level of corruption. In: Kotkin S, Sajo A (eds) Political corruption in transition: a sceptic’s handbook. Central European University Press, Budapest, pp 91–113Google Scholar
  15. Epstein R (2008) In pursuit of liberalism: international institutions in postcommunist Europe. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein R, Sedelmeier U (2009) International influence beyond conditionality: postcommunist Europe after EU enlargement, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Featherstone K, Radaelli C (2003) Politics of Europeanization. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. Int Org 52(04):887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Framework Regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2052. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31988R2052
  20. Ganev V (2014) The legacies of 1989: Bulgaria’s year of civic anger. J Democr 25(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. George A, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Green Cowles M, Caporaso J, Risse T (2001) Transforming Europe: europeanization and domestic change. Cornell University Press Cornell Studies in Political EconomyGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta S, Davoodi H, Alonso-Terme R (2002) Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Econ Gov 3(1):23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey J (2004) Compliance and reporting issues arising for financial institutions from money laundering regulations: a preliminary cost benefit study. J Money Laund Control 7(4):333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Héritier A, Knill C, Mingers S (1996) Ringing the changes in Europe: regulatory competition and the transformation of the state. Britain, France, Germany. Walter De Gruyter & Co, New York, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hristova-Kurzydlowski D (2013) Programming EU funds in Bulgaria: challenges, opportunities and the role of civil society. Stud Transition States Soc 5(1):22–40Google Scholar
  27. Jacoby W (2006) Inspiration, coalition, and substitution: external influences on postcommunist transformations. World Polit 58(4):623–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joerges C (2001) The bright and the dark side of the consumer’s access to justice in the EU. Glob Jurist Top 1(2). doi: 10.2202/1535-167X.1026
  29. Johnston M (1997) Public officials, private interests, and sustainable democracy: when politics and corruption meet. In: Elliott K (ed) Corruption and the global economy. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, pp 61–82Google Scholar
  30. Jones E (2007) Populism in Europe. SAIS Rev 27(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knack S, Keefer P (1995) Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures. Econ Politics 7(3):207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krastev I (2004) Shifting obsessions: three essays on the politics of anti-corruption. Central European University Press, Budapest; New York, p 33Google Scholar
  33. Leiken R (1996) Controlling the global corruption epidemic. Foreign Policy 105:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lopes C, Theisohn T (2003) Can we do better for capacity development. Earthscan Copyright, UNDPGoogle Scholar
  35. Marinov V, Garnizov V, Georgiev G (2006) Assessment of the capacity of non-governmental organisations and business to participate in the absorption of the EU structural and cohesion funds. UNDP, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  36. Mauro P (1995) Corruption and growth. Quart J Econ 110:681–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mauro P (1997) Why Worry about Corruption? International Monetary Fund Economic Issues 6Google Scholar
  38. Milio S (2007) Can administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? Evidence from structural funds implementation in Southern Italy. Reg Stud 41:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nanetti R, Rato H, Rodrigues M (2004) Institutional capacity and reluctant decentralisation in Portugal: the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region. Reg Fed Stud 14:405–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson A, B Rothstein, J Teorell (2013) Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problemgove Governance: an international J Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(3):449–471Google Scholar
  41. Rose-Ackerman S (1996) When is corruption harmful?. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose-Ackerman S (1999) Corruption and government: causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandholtz W, Koetzle W (2000) Accounting for corruption: economic structure, democracy, and trade. Int Stud Quart 44:31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sandholtz W, Taagepera R (2005) Corruption, culture, and communism. Int Rev Sociol 15(1):109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sedelmeier U (2006) Europeanisation in new member and candidate states. Living reviews in European Governance 1(3). http://europeangovernance-livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2011-1
  46. Smilov D (2010) Anticorruption agencies: expressive, constructivist and strategic uses. Crime Law Soc Change 53:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stefes C (2007) Measuring, conceptualizing, and fighting systemic corruption: evidence from post-soviet countries. Perspect Global Issues 2(1):1–16Google Scholar
  48. Vachudova M (2005) Europe undivided: democracy, leverage and integration after communism. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yanakiev A (2010) The Europeanization of Bulgarian regional policy: a case of strengthened centralization. Southeast Eur Black Sea Stud 10:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations