Combating corruption in Europe: a stimulus–response approach

Symposium
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

What is the effect of external stimuli in curbing corruption at the national level? This article analyses the intervening impact of EU post-conditionality and GRECO monitoring on countries’ anti-corruption record. It finds that “soft governance” has a positive impact and stimulates national responses against corruption. This positive influence increases when is additionally conditioned by strong internal stimuli targeting corruption.

Keywords

Bulgaria Corruption EU GRECO Post-conditionality Romania 

Supplementary material

41304_2018_151_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Böhmelt, T., and T. Freyburg. 2012. The Temporal Dimension of the Credibility of EU Conditionality and Candidate States' Compliance with the Acquis Communitaire, 1998–2009. European Union Politics 14(2): 250–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulmer, S., D. Dolowitz, P. Humphreys, and S. Padgett. 2007. Policy Transfer in European Union Governance: Regulating the utilities. London: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  3. Buonanno, L., and N. Nugent. 2013. Policies and Policy Processes of the European Union. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copeland, P., and D. Papadimitriou (eds.). 2012. The EU’s Lisbon Agenda: Evaluating Success, Understanding Failure. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. 2016. Resolution 97(24) On the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight Against Corruption. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco/about-greco/priority-for-the-coe. Accessed March 2018.
  6. CSD. 2012. Corruption and Anti-corruption in Bulgaria (2011–2012) Policy Brief No. 35, November 2014. Available at www.csd.bg.
  7. CSD. 2014. Corruption and Anti-corruption in Bulgaria (2013–2014) Policy Brief No. 46, November 2014. Available at www.csd.bg.
  8. CSD The Centre for the Study of Democracy. 2009. Crime Without Punishment. Countering Corruption and Organized Crime in Bulgaria. Available at www.csd.bg.
  9. DNA. 2014. Raport de Activitate 2014. http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=241.
  10. DNA. 2015. Raport de Activitate 2015. Available at: http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=249.
  11. DNA Directia Nationala AntiCoruptie. 2013. Raport de Activitate 2013. Available at: http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=231.
  12. Doig, A. 1995. Good Government and Sustainable Anti-corruption Strategies: A Role for Independent Anti-corruption Agencies? Public Administration and Development 15: 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ERCAS European Research Centre for Anti-corruption and State-Building. 2015. Public Integrity and Trust in Europe. Berlin: Hertie School of Governance.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2006. Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Bulgaria and Romania. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu. Accessed March 2018.
  15. European Commission. 2009a. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania Under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2009b. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Bulgaria Under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism {SEC(2009) 1074}.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. 2015. Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/.
  18. Ganev, V. 2013. Post-accession Hooliganism: Democratic Governance in Bulgaria and Romania After 2007. East European Politics and Societies 27: 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, J., G. Sasse, and C. Gordon. 2004. Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. The Myth of Conditionality. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  20. Jain, A.K. 2001. Corruption: A Review. Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 71–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunicová, J., and S. Rose-Ackerman. 2005. Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science 35: 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. 2013. Controlling Corruption Through Collective Action. Journal of Democracy 24(1): 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. 2015. The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Coruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peiffer, C., and L. Alvarez. 2015. Who Will Be the “Principled-Principals” Perceptions of Corruption and Willingness to Engage in Anticorruption Activism. Governance 29(3): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Public Integrity Index IPI. 2016. Available at http://integrity-index.org/.
  26. Quah, J.S.T. 1984. The Public Policy-Making Process in Singapore. Asian Journal of Public Administration 6(2): 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quah, J.S.T. 2003. Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
  28. Quah, J.S.T. 2010. Defying Institutional Failure: Earning from the Experiences of Anti-corruption Agencies in Four Asian Countries. Crime, Law and Social Change 53: 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sasse, G. 2008. The European Neighbourhood Policy: Conditionality Revisited for the EU’s Eastern Neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies 60(2): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Smismans, S. 2011. From Harmonization to Co-ordination? EU Law in the Lisbon Governance Architecture. Journal of European Public Policy 18(4): 504–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spendzarova, A., and M. Vachudova. 2012a. Catching Up? Consolidating Liberal Democracy in Bulgaria and Romania. West European Politics 35(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spendzarova, A., and Vachudova, M. 2012b. The EU’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism: Fighting Corruption in Bulgaria and Romania after EU accession. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, March, issue 1.Google Scholar
  34. Transparency International. 2016. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/.
  35. Tsoneva, J., and Medarov, G. n.d. The Rise of the Rhizomatic Party Form. Available at academia.edu.Google Scholar
  36. UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2014. On Track Against Corruption. Available at: http://www.track.unodc.org/ACAuthorities/Pages/home.aspx.

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations