Advertisement

Fostering institutionalisation? The impact of the EU accession process on state–civil society relations in Serbia

  • Adam Fagan
  • Natasha Wunsch
Original Article

Abstract

In the framework of its enlargement policy, the EU has placed considerable emphasis on supporting civil society organisations (CSOs) both as domestic drivers of change and as a means to foster new, more participatory modes of governance. Our research examines the impact of the EU accession process on state–civil society relations in the Western Balkans and assesses the extent to which new forms of interaction are becoming institutionalised. Comparing minority rights and environmental regulation in Serbia, we find that enlargement negotiations lead to increased dialogue and more formalised interactions between government and CSOs. However, the institutionalisation of state–CSO cooperation remains partial and is hampered by a lack of political will. Whereas civil servants are generally open to civil society input, political officials frequently resort to façade cooperation in response to external pressures. We conclude that the emerging governance model is nothing like the ‘double weakness’ or agency capture found in earlier studies, but instead consists of strong hierarchy and a narrow group of highly professional CSOs engaged at the margins.

Keywords

Civil society organisation Environment Institutionalisation Minority rights Serbia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their interview partners in Belgrade for their time and gratefully acknowledge the constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Anđelković, B., and L. Gojgić. 2014. EU Civil Society Facility Serbia Programme 2011–2013. http://civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/upload/documents/Kancelarija/EU_IPA/English/EU%20Civil%20Society%20Facility%20Programm%202011-2013.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2017.
  2. Andonova, L.B., and I.A. Tuta. 2014. Transnational Networks and Paths to EU Environmental Compliance: Evidence from New Member States. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (4): 775–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balkan Civil Society Development Network. 2016. Monitoring Matrix: Country Report for Serbia 2016. http://monitoringmatrix.net/m-m-reports-coded/civil-society-development-in-serbia-2016/. Accessed 17 June 2017.
  4. Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. 2016. Study on the Legal Framework for National Councils of National Minorities: Focus on Co-operation and Communication Tools. Belgrade, December.Google Scholar
  5. Berkhout, J., M. Hanegraaff, and C. Braun. 2017. Is the EU Different? Comparing the Diversity of National and EU-Level Systems of Interest Organisations. West European Politics 40 (5): 1109–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilić, B. 2016. LGBT Activism and Europeanisation in the Post-Yugoslav Space: On the Rainbow Way to Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobić, M., and R. Božić. 2012. Civil Society in the Process of European Integration—from Constructive Dialogue to Successful Negotiations. Belgrade: European Movement in Serbia.Google Scholar
  8. Bojičić-Dželilović, V., J. Ker-Lindsay, and D. Kostovicova. 2013. Civil Society and Transitions in the Western Balkans. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bomberg, E. 2007. Policy Learning in an Enlarged European Union: Environmental NGOs and New Policy Instruments. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (2): 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börzel, T.A. 2009. New Modes of Governance and Accession: The Paradox of Double Weakness. In Coping with Accession to the European Union: New Modes of Environmental Governance, ed. T.A. Börzel, 7–31. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Börzel, T.A. 2010. Why You Don’t Always Get What You Want: EU Enlargement and Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe. Acta politica 45 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Börzel, T.A. 2015. The Noble West and the Dirty Rest? Western Democracy Promoters and Illiberal Regional Powers. Democratization 22 (3): 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Börzel, T.A., and A. Buzogany. 2010. Governing EU Accession in Transition Countries: The Role of Non-state Actors. Acta Politica 45 (1/2): 158–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Börzel, T.A., and Y. Pamuk. 2011. Europeanization Subverted? The European Union’s Promotion of Good Governance and the Fight against Corruption in the Southern Caucasus. KFG Working Paper Series April(26).Google Scholar
  15. Buzogany, A. 2009. Romania: Environmental Governance—Form Without Substance. In Coping with Accession to the European Union: New Modes of Environmental Governance, ed. T.A. Börzel, 169–191. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carmin, J. 2010. NGO Capacity and Environmental Governance in Central and Eastern Europe. Acta Politica 45 (1–2): 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Della Porta, D., and M. Diani. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Dimitrova, A.L. 2010. The New Member States of the EU in the Aftermath of Enlargement: Do New European Rules Remain Empty Shells? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimitrova, A.L., and A. Buzogany. 2014. Post-accession Policy-Making in Bulgaria and Romania: Can Non-state Actors use EU Rules to Promote Better Governance? Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (1): 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elbasani, A. 2013. Europeanization Travels to the Western Balkans: Enlargement Strategy, Domestic Obstacles and Diverging Reforms. In European Integration and Transformation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or Business as Usual?, ed. A. Elbasani, 3–21. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Elek, B., L. Ubović, and T. Zornaczuk. 2015. Civil Society Networks in the EU Integration of Serbia. Warsaw: Polish Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. 2013. Guidelines for EU Support to Civil Society in Enlargement Countries, 2014–2020. http://www.tacso.org/doc/doc_guidelines_cs_support.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.
  23. European Commission. 2014. Serbia 2014 Progress Report: SWD(2014) 302 Final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 2015. Serbia 2015 Report: SWD(2015) 211 Final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. 2016. Serbia Report 2016: SWD(2016) 361 Final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  26. Fagan, A. 2006. Transnational Aid for Civil Society Development in Post-socialist Europe: Democratic Consolidation or a New Imperialism? Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 22 (1): 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fagan, A. 2010. The New Kids on the Block—Building Environmental Governance in the Western Balkans. Acta Politica 45 (1/2): 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Government of Serbia. 2014. Smernice za uključivanje organizacija civilnog društva u proces donošenja propisa. Belgrade, 26 August. https://civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/upload/old_site/2012/10/SR-smernice.pdf.
  29. Government Office for Cooperation with Civil Society. 2015. Baseline Study for the Development of the first National Strategy for Creating an Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development in the Republic of Serbia 20152019. Belgrade. https://www.civilnodrustvo.gov.rs/upload/documents/Kancelarija/EU_IPA/English/Cooperation%20of%20State%20Administration%20and%20CSOs%20-%20Baseline%20study.pdf.
  30. Grabbe, H. 2006. The EU’s Transformative Power: Europeanization through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave studies in European Union politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwood, J. 2007. Review article: Organized Civil Society and Democratic Legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guttenbrunner, S. 2009. Poland: When Environmental Governance Meets Politics. In Coping with Accession to the European Union: New Modes of Environmental Governance, ed. T.A. Börzel, 148–168. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keil, S., and Z. Arkan. 2014. The EU and Member State Building: European Foreign Policy in the Western Balkans. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Ker-Lindsay, J. 2013. Conclusion. In Civil Society and Transitions in the Western Balkans, ed. V. Bojičić-Dželilović, J. Ker-Lindsay, and D. Kostovicova, 257–264. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kohler-Koch, B. 2010. Civil Society and EU Democracy: ‘astroturf’ Representation? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langbein, J. 2015. Transnationalization and Regulatory Change in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood: Ukraine Between Brussels and Moscow. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly. 2009. Comparative Perspectives on Contentious Politics. In Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, ed. M.I. Lichbach, and A.S. Zuckerman, 260–290. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mikuš, M. 2015. Informal Networks and Interstitial Arenas of Power in the Making of Civil Society Law in Serbia. Sociologija 57 (4): 571–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Noutcheva, G. 2009. Fake, Partial and Imposed Compliance: The Limits of the EU’s Normative Power in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (7): 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noutcheva, G. 2016. Societal Empowerment and Europeanization: Revisiting the EU’s Impact on Democratization. Journal of Common Market Studies 54 (3): 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Brennan, J. 2013. The European Commission, Enlargement Policy and Civil Society in the Western Balkans. In Civil Society and Transitions in the Western Balkans, ed. V. Bojičić-Dželilović, J. Ker-Lindsay, and D. Kostovicova, 29–46. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Dwyer, C. 2012. Does the EU Help or Hinder Gay-Rights Movements in Post-communist Europe? The Case of Poland. East European Politics 28 (4): 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom, E. 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1): 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parau, C.E. 2009. Impaling Dracula: How EU Accession Empowered Civil Society in Romania. West European Politics 32 (1): 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parau, C.E. 2010. East Side Story: How Transnational Coalitions Contested EU Conditionality. Europe-Asia Studies 62 (9): 1527–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Princen, S., and B. Kerremans. 2008. Opportunity Structures in the EU Multi-Level System. West European Politics 31 (6): 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raik, K. 2006. The Ambivalent Impact of Accession on Civil Society: The Case of Estonia. In Das Erbe des Beitritts: Europäisierung in Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. A. Kutter, and V. Trappmann, 317–338. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  49. Rosenau, J.N. 1995. Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Global Governance 1 (1): 13–43.Google Scholar
  50. Sanchez Salgado, R. 2014. Rebalancing EU Interest Representation? Associative Democracy and EU Funding of Civil Society Organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (2): 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schimmelfennig, F. 2014. Democracy Promotion and Civil Society in Eastern Europe: Conclusions. In Civil Society and Democracy Promotion, ed. T. Beichelt, I. Hahn-Fuhr, F. Schimmelfennig, and S. Worschesch, 217–233. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sedelmeier, U. 2012. Is Europeanisation Through Conditionality Sustainable? Lock-in of Institutional Change After EU Accession. West European Politics 35 (1): 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sissenich, B. 2010. Weak States, Weak Societies: Europe’s East-West Gap. Acta Politica 45 (1–2): 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slootmaeckers, K., H. Touquet, and P. Vermeersch. 2016. The EU Enlargement and Gay Politics: The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Rights, Activism and Prejudice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steffek, J., and M.P. Ferretti. 2009. Accountability or “Good Decisions”?: The Competing Goals of Civil Society Participation in International Governance. Global Society 23 (1): 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sudbery, I. 2010. The European Union as Political Resource: NGOs as Change Agents? Acta Politica 45 (1): 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vachudova, M.A. 2014. EU Leverage and National Interests in the Balkans: The Puzzles of Enlargement Ten Years On. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (1): 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Velat, D. 2013. Civil Society Advocacy Initiative Legacy 2006-2013. Belgrade: Civic Initiatives/USAID. January.Google Scholar
  59. Vidačak, I., and M. Škrabalo. 2014. Exploring the Effects of Europeanization on the Openness of Public Administration in Croatia. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration 14 (1): 149–187.Google Scholar
  60. Warleigh, A. 2001. ‘Europeanizing’ Civil Society: NGOs as Agents of Political Socialization. Journal of Common Market Studies 39 (4): 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wunsch, N. 2016. Coming Full Circle? Differential Empowerment in Croatia’s EU Accession Process. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (7): 1199–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wunsch, N. 2018. EU Enlargement and Civil Society in the Western Balkans: From Mobilisation to Empowerment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queen Mary University LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Center for Comparative and International StudiesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations