Advertisement

Absorption of EU Funds in a Post-communist and Post-accession Context

  • Christian Hagemann
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

This chapter builds on existing theories’ failure to account convincingly for the patterns and dynamics detected in CEE countries’ absorption performances. It therefore introduces a contextualization of the implementation process in order to identify further relevant influences. The chapter discusses in detail: the region’s disposition to party politicization and patronage in the central state administration; the EU’s attempts of depoliticization and capacity building during the accession process; and the process of post-communist economic reform and its relevance in the context of the global financial and economic crisis, which happened during the period under investigation. The chapter closes with an overview of the framework for analysis and an introduction to the methods applied.

Keywords

Party politicization and patronage Depoliticization Capacity building Accession process The process of post-communist economic reform Global financial and economic crisis 

References

  1. Allen, D. (2008). Cohesion Policy Pre- and Post-enlargement. In M. Baun & D. Marek (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy After Enlargement (pp. 15–33). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  2. Åslund, A. (2010). The Last Shall Be the First: The East European Financial Crisis. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Autengruber, C. (2008). Bulgarien: Zwischen anfänglichen Konsolidierungstendenzen und aktuellen Umbrüchen. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 133–146). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  4. Bachtler, J., Downes, R., & Gorzelak, G. (2000). Transition, Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Conclusions. In J. Bachtler, R. Downes, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Transition Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 355–378). Aldershot et al.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Bachtler, J., & McMaster, I. (2008). EU Cohesion Policy and the Role of the Regions: Investigating the Influence of Structural Funds in the New Member States. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachtler, J., Mendez, C., & Oraže, H. (2014). From Conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative Performance and Capacity in Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, D., & De Propris, L. (2004). A Bridge Too Phare? EU Pre-accession Aid and Capacity-Building in the Candidate Countries. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), 77–98.Google Scholar
  8. Banaszewska, M., & Bischoff, I. (2016). The Political Economy of EU-Funds in Poland: Evidence for the Period 2007–2013 (Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics). Available at http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers. Accessed May 2016.
  9. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beach, D., & Rohlfing, I. (2018). Integrating Cross-Case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Research Strategies and Parameters of Debate. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beichelt, T. (2004). Die Europäische Union nach der Osterweiterung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an Approach. In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (pp. 1–18). London et al.: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Beugelsdijk, M., & Eijffinger, S. C. (2005). The Effectiveness of Structural Policy in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis for the EU-15 in 1995–2001. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
  14. Bideleux, R. (2011). Contrasting Responses to the International Economic Crisis of 2008–10 in the 11 CIS Countries and in the 10 Post-communist EU Member Countries. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 27(3–4), 338–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bingen, D. (2008). Polen: Wie ein labiles Parteiensystem zu einer Stabilisierung der Demokratie beiträgt. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 77–90). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  16. Blom-Hansen, J. (2005). Principals, Agents, and the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4), 624–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bloom, S., & Petrova, V. (2013). National Subversion of Supranational Goals: ‘Pork-Barrel’ Politics and EU Regional Aid. Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1599–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bodenstein, T., & Kemmerling, A. (2011). Ripples in a Rising Tide: Why Some EU Regions Receive More Structural Funds Than Others. European Integration Online Papers, 16(1). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2012-001a.htm. Accessed Jan 2016.
  19. Boeckhout, S., Boot, L., Hollanders, M., Reincke, K.-J., & De Vet, J. M. (2002). Key Indicators for Candidate Countries to Effectively Manage the Structural Funds (Principal Report). Rotterdam: NEI Regional and Urban Development. Available at http://www.evaluace.cz/dokumenty/hodnot_zpr_eu/souhrnna_studie.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  20. Bohle, D. (2011). East European Transformations and the Paradoxes of Transnationalization. In J. DeBardeleben & A. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Transnational Europe: Promise, Paradox, Limits (pp. 130–151). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Börzel, T. A. (2000). Why There Is No ‘Southern Problem’: On Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bos, E., & Segert, D. (2008). Osteuropa als Trendsetter? Parteiensysteme in repräsentativen Demokratien unter mehrfachem Druck. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 323–336). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  23. Bouvet, F., & Dall’Erba, S. (2010). European Regional Structural Funds: How Large Is the Influence of Politics on the Allocation Process? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), 501–528.Google Scholar
  24. Buzogány, A. (2012). Accelerating or Back-Pedalling? L’Europe en Formation (Vol. 364, pp. 111–127). Brussels: Centre International de Formation Européenne. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Buzogány, A., & Korkut, U. (2013). Administrative Reform and Regional Development Discourses in Hungary: Europeanisation Going NUTS? Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Buzogány, A., & Stuchlík, A. (2010). Wandlungen in Kafkas Schloß? Verwaltungsreform und -Modernisierung in Mittel- und Osteuropa. In H. Hill (Ed.), Verwaltungsmodernisierung 2010 (pp. 255–281). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  27. Camyar, I. (2010). Europeanization, Domestic Legacies and Administrative Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Hungary and the Czech Republic. Journal of European Integration, 32(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chalmers, A. W. (2013). Regional Authority, Transnational Lobbying and the Allocation of Structural Funds in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 815–831.Google Scholar
  29. Connolly, R. (2010). The EU Economy: Member States Outside the Euro Area in 2009. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(Annual Review), 243–266.Google Scholar
  30. Connolly, R. (2012). The Determinants of the Economic Crisis in Post-socialist Europe. Europe–Asia Studies, 64(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Crawford, B. (1995). Post-communist Political Economy: A Framework for the Analysis of Reform. In B. Crawford (Ed.), Markets, States, and Democracy: The Political Economy of Post-communist Transformation (pp. 3–42). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Crouch, C. (2008). What Will Follow the Demise of Privatised Keynesianism? Political Quarterly, 79(4), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Deegan-Krause, K., & Haugton, T. (2010). A Fragile Stability. The Institutional Roots of Low Party System Volatility in the Czech Republic, 1990–2009. Czech Journal of Political Science (Politologický časopis), 17(3): 227–241. Google Scholar
  34. Dellmuth, L. M. (2011). The Cash Divide: The Allocation of European Union Regional Grants. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dellmuth, L. M., & Stoffel, M. F. (2012). Distributive Politics and Intergovernmental Transfers: The Local Allocation of European Union Structural Funds. European Union Politics, 13(3), 413–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dimitrov, V., Goetz, K. H., & Wollmann, H. (2006). Governing After Communism: Institutions and Policymaking. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  37. Dimitrova, A. L. (2002). Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EUs Administrative Capacity Requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dimitrova, A. L. (2005). Europeanization and Civil Service Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. In F. Schimmelfennig & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 71–90). Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Dimitrova, A. L., & Steunenberg, B. (2013). Living in Parallel Universes? Implementing European Movable Cultural Heritage Policy in Bulgaria. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 246–263.Google Scholar
  40. Dimitrova, A. L., & Toshkov, D. (2007). The Dynamics of Domestic Coordination of EU Policy in the New Member States: Impossible to Lock In? West European Politics, 30(5), 961–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dimitrova, A. L., & Toshkov, D. (2009). Post-accession Compliance Between Administrative Co-ordination and Political Bargaining. European Integration Online Papers, 13, Article 19. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-019a.htm. Accessed Jan 2016.
  42. Döring, H., & Manow, P. (2014). Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Parties, Elections and Governments in Modern Democracies. Version 14/12–29 December 2014. Available at http://parlgov.org/. Accessed 27 Jan 2015.
  43. Dotti, N. F. (2013). The Unbearable Instability of Structural Funds’ Distribution. European Planning Studies, 21(4), 596–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Dotti, N. F. (2016). Unwritten Factors Affecting Structural Funds: The Influence of Regional Political Behaviours on the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 24(3), 530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Drevet, J.-F. (2000). Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: The EU Perspective. In J. Bachtler, R. Downes, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Transition Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 345–353). Aldershot et al.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Druckman, J. N., & Roberts, A. (2007). Communist Successor Parties and Coalition Formation in Eastern Europe. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Duverger, M. (1990). Caucus and Branch, Cadre Parties and Mass Parties. In P. Mair (Ed.), The West European Party System (pp. 37–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Enyedi, Z. (2006). The Survival of the Fittest: Party System Concentration in Hungary. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 177–202). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  49. European Commission. (2007). Cohesion Policy 2007–13: Commentaries and Official Texts. European Union Regional Policy. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/legislation/2007/cohesion-policy-2007-13-commentaries-and-official-texts. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  50. Falkner, G., & Treib, O. (2008). Three Worlds of Compliance or Four? The EU-15 Compared to New Member States. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 293–313.Google Scholar
  51. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Fink-Hafner, D. (2006). Slovenia: Between Bipolarity and Broad Coalition-Building. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 203–231). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  53. Fink-Hafner, D. (2012). Slovenia. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 51(1), 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fortin, J. (2010). A Tool to Evaluate State Capacity in Post-communist Countries, 1989–2006. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 654–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Frye, T. (2002). The Perils of Polarization: Economic Performance in the Postcommunist World. World Politics, 54(3), 308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Frye, T. (2010). Building States and Markets After Communism: The Perils of Polarized Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Gerring, J. (2008). The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Goetz, K. H. (2001). Making Sense of Post-communist Central Administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization? Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 1032–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Goetz, K. H., & Wollmann, H. (2001). Governmentalizing Central Executives in Post-communist Europe: A Four-Country Comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 864–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Grabbe, H. (2001). How Does Europeanization Affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 1013–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Greskovits, B. (1998). The Political Economy of Protest and Patience: East European and Latin American Transformations Compared. Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Grotz, F., & Weber, T. (2011). Regierungskoalitionen: Bildung und Dauerhaftigkeit. In F. Grotz & F. Müller-Rommel (Eds.), Regierungssysteme in Mittel- und Osteuropa (pp. 194–216). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Grzymala-Busse, A. (2001). Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in New Democracies: East Central Europe. Comparative Politics, 34(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Grzymala-Busse, A. (2006). Authoritarian Determinants of Democratic Party Competition: The Communist Successor Parties in East Central Europe. Party Politics, 12(3), 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Grzymala-Busse, A. (2007). Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-communist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Grzymala-Busse, A., & Luong, P. J. (2002). Reconceptualizing the State: Lessons from Post-communism. Politics & Society, 30(4), 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Haverland, M., & Romeijn, M. (2007). Do Member States Make European Policies Work? Analysing the EU Transposition Deficit. Public Administration, 85(3), 757–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Haverland, M., Steunenberg, B., & van Waarden, F. (2011). Sectors at Different Speeds: Analysing Transposition Deficits in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 265–291.Google Scholar
  70. Holmes, L. (1997). Post-communism: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Horvat, A. (2005). Why Does Nobody Care About the Absorption? Some Aspects Regarding Administrative Absorption Capacity for the EU Structural Funds in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia Before Accession (WIFO Working Papers). Wien: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. Available at http://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=25750&mime_type=application/pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  72. Hughes, J., Sasse, G., & Gordon, C. (2004). Conditionality and Compliance in the EU’s Eastward Enlargement: Regional Policy and the Reform of Sub-national Government. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 523–551.Google Scholar
  73. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  74. Ikstens, J. (2012). Latvia. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 51(1), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jungerstam-Mulders, S. (2006). Parties and Party Systems in Post-communist EU Member States: Comparative Aspects. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 1–22). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  76. Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (2009). The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(4), 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kickert, W., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). Europe Managing the Crisis: The Politics of Fiscal Consolidation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kiszelly, Z. (2008). Ungarn: Auf dem Weg zum Kartellparteiensystem. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 121–132). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  80. Kitschelt, H. (1995). Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions. Party Politics, 1(4), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kitschelt, H. (1999). Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kitschelt, H. (2001). Divergent Paths of Postcommunist Democracies. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political Parties and Democracy (pp. 299–323). Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (2007). Citizen–Politician Linkage: An Introduction. In H. Kitschelt & S. I. Wilkinson (Eds.), Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition (pp. 1–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. König, K. (1992). The Transformation of a ‘Real-Socialist’ Administrative System into a Conventional Western European System. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 58(2), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kopecký, P. (2006). Political Parties and the State in Post-communist Europe: The Nature of Symbiosis. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kopecký, P., & Mair, P. (2012a). Conclusion: Party Patronage in Contemporary Europe. In P. Kopecký, P. Mair, & M. Spirova (Eds.), Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies (pp. 357–374). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kopecký, P., & Mair, P. (2012b). Party Patronage as an Organizational Resource. In P. Kopecký, P. Mair, & M. Spirova (Eds.), Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kopecký, P., Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., Panizza, F., Scherlis, G., Schuster, C., & Spirova, M. (2016). Party Patronage in Contemporary Democracies: Results from an Expert Survey in 22 Countries from Five Regions. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kopecký, P., & Spirova, M. (2011). ‘Jobs for the Boys’? Patterns of Party Patronage in Post-communist Europe. West European Politics, 34(5), 897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kornai, J. (1995). Das sozialistische System: Die politische Ökonomie des Kommunismus. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  91. Kornai, J. (1996). Paying the Bill for Goulash Communism: Hungarian Development and Macro Stabilization in a Political-Economy Perspective. Social Research, 63(4), 943–1040.Google Scholar
  92. Lackowska-Madurowicz, M., & Swianiewicz, P. (2013). Structures, Procedures and Social Capital: The Implementation of EU Cohesion Policies by Subnational Governments in Poland. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1396–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Leonardi, R. (2005). Cohesion Policy in the European Union: The Building of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Linek, L. (2014). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 53(1), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (pp. 1–64). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  96. LT4. (2014). Interview in Vilnius with Lithuanian Official on 7 May 2014.Google Scholar
  97. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization. In R. S. Katz & W. J. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of Party Politics (pp. 204–227). London et al.: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Mainwaring, S., & Zoco, E. (2007). Political Sequences and the Stabilization of Interparty Competition: Electoral Volatility in Old and New Democracies. Party Politics, 13(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Mair, P. (1997). Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Maniokas, K. (2009). Conditionality and Compliance in Lithuania: The Case of the Best Performer. European Integration Online Papers, 13, Article 20. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2009-020.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2016.
  103. Medve-Bálint, G. (2017). Funds for the Wealthy and the Politically Loyal? How EU Funds May Contribute to Increasing Regional Disparities in East Central Europe. In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing Performance and Direction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2004). Civil Service Reform in Post-communist Europe: The Bumpy Road to Depoliticisation. West European Politics, 27(1), 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2006). The Rise of the Partisan State? Parties, Patronage and the Ministerial Bureaucracy in Hungary. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3), 274–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2008). The Changing Colours of the Post-communist State: The Politicisation of the Senior Civil Service in Hungary. European Journal of Political Research, 47(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  107. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2009a). Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years After EU Accession (Sigma Paper No. 44). Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/sustainability-of-civil-service-reforms-in-central-and-eastern-europe-five-years-after-eu-accession_5kml60pvjmbq-en. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  108. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2009b). Varieties of Legacies: A Critical Review of Legacy Explanations of Public Administration Reform in East Central Europe. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(3), 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2011). The Durability of EU Civil Service Policy in Central and Eastern Europe After Accession. Governance, 24(2), 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., & Veen, T. (2012). Governing the Post-communist State: Government Alternation and Senior Civil Service Politicisation in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Politics, 28(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Mikkel, E. (2006). Patterns of Party Formation in Estonia: Consolidation Unaccomplished. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 23–47). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  112. Milio, S. (2007). Can Administrative Capacity Explain Differences in Regional Performances? Evidence from Structural Funds Implementation in Southern Italy. Regional Studies, 41(4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Milio, S. (2008). How Political Stability Shapes Administrative Performance: The Italian Case. West European Politics, 31(5), 915–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2007). Is East-Central Europe Backsliding? EU Accession Is No ‘End of History’. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 8–16.Google Scholar
  115. Muraközy, B., & Telegdy, Á. (2016). Political Incentives and State Subsidy Allocation: Evidence from Hungarian Municipalities. European Economic Review, 89, 324–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Myant, M., & Drahokoupil, J. (2012). International Integration, Varieties of Capitalism and Resilience to Crisis in Transition Economies. Europe–Asia Studies, 64(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Nakrošis, V., & Gudžinskas, L. (2012). Party Patronage and State Politicisation in the Post-communist Countries of Central and Eastern Europe: A Game Theory Approach. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 5(2), 89–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Nunberg, B. (2000). Ready for Europe: Public Administration Reform and European Union Accession in Central and Eastern Europe (World Bank Technical Paper No. 466). Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/05/437136/ready-europe-public-administration-reform-european-union-accession-central-eastern-europe. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  119. O’Dwyer, C. (2004). Runaway State Building; How Political Parties Shape States in Postcommunist Eastern Europe. World Politics, 56(4), 520–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. O’Dwyer, C. (2006a). Reforming Regional Governance in East Central Europe: Europeanization or Domestic Politics as Usual? East European Politics & Societies, 20(2), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. O’Dwyer, C. (2006b). Runaway State-Building: Patronage Politics and Democratic Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  122. O’Dwyer, C. (2014). What Accounts for Party System Stability? Comparing the Dimensions of Party Competition in Postcommunist Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 66(4): 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Offe, C. (2004). Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple Transition in East Central Europe. Social Research, 71(3), 501–528.Google Scholar
  124. Olejniczak, K. (2013). Mechanisms Shaping an Evaluation System—A Case Study of Poland 1999–2010. Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1642–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Olteanu, T. (2008). Rumänien: Vom Einparteiensystem zum Einheitsbrei. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 147–166). Oplanden and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  126. Pabriks, A., & Stokenberga, A. (2006). Political Parties and the Party System in Latvia. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 51–67). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  127. Pedersen, M. N. (1979). The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility. European Journal of Political Research, 7(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Piattoni, S. (2001). Clientelism in Historical and Comparative Perspective. In S. Piattoni (Ed.), Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Piattoni, S., & Smyrl, M. (2003). Building Effective Institutions: Italian Regions and the EU Structural Funds. In J. Bukowski, S. Piattoni, & M. Smyrl (Eds.), Between Europeanization and Local Societies: The Space for Territorial Governance (pp. 133–156). Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  130. Pop-Eleches, G. (2010). Throwing Out the Bums: Protest Voting and Unorthodox Parties After Communism. World Politics, 62(2), 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Popa, A. (2012). The Impact of the Structural Funds in the Transformation Process of the New EU Member States. L’Europe en Formation (Vol. 364, pp. 161–179). Brussels: Centre International de Formation Européenne.Google Scholar
  132. Przeworski, A. (1995). Sustainable Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley et al.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  134. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  135. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (Vol. 51, pp. 87–121). London et al.: Sage.Google Scholar
  136. Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Set Relations in Social Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Ramonaite, A. (2006). The Development of the Lithuanian Party System: From Stability to Perturbation. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 69–90). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  138. Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Roper, S. D. (2006). The Influence of Party Patronage and State Finance on Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from Romania. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22(3), 362–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Rouban, L. (2003). Politicization of the Civil Service. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 310–320). London et al.: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Rybar, M. (2006). Old Parties and New: Changing Patterns of Party Politics in Slovakia. In S. Jungerstam-Mulders (Ed.), Post-communist EU Member States: Parties and Party Systems (pp. 147–176). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  142. Rynck, S. D., & McAleavey, P. (2001). The Cohesion Deficit in Structural Fund Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Sagemann, B., & Reese, P. (2011). The Great Subprime Credit Crisis and Its Impact on Eastern Europe. In J. Jungmann & B. Sagemann (Eds.), Financial Crisis in Eastern Europe (pp. 21–63). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2005a). Conclusions. The Impact of the EU on the Accession Countries. In F. Schimmelfennig & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 210–228). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2005b). Introduction. Conceptualizing the Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. In F. Schimmelfennig & U. Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 1–28). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-method Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2016). Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-Set QCA on Sufficiency: Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 526–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  149. Schraff, D. (2014). Buying Turnout or Rewarding Loyalists? Electoral Mobilization and EU Structural Funding in the German Länder. European Union Politics, 15(2), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Sedelmeier, U. (2008). After Conditionality: Post-accession Compliance with EU Law in East Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 806–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 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
  152. Segert, D. (2008). Parteien und Transformation in Osteuropa nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 11–32). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  153. SGI. (2014a). Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD and EU. Sustainable Governance Indicators. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Available at https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Policy_Performance_and_Governance_Capacities_SGI2014_Overview.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  154. SGI. (2014b). Sustainable Governance Indicators 2014 Codebook. Available at http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/en/media/xcms_bst_dms_37442__2.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
  155. Šipikal, M. (2014). Political and Administrative Barriers of Cohesion Policy Implementation in Slovakia. Paper Presented at the Conference of the Regional Studies Association 4 June 2014, Prague, 05.06.2014.Google Scholar
  156. Spirova, M., & Kolarova, R. (2010). Bulgaria. European Journal of Political Research, 49(7–8), 909–918.Google Scholar
  157. Stark, D. (1990). Privatization in Hungary: From Plan to Market or From Plan to Clan? Eastern European Politics and Societies, 4(3), 351–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Stone, R. W. (2002). Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-communist Transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Surubaru, N.-C. (2017a). Administrative Capacity or Quality of Political Governance? EU Cohesion Policy in the New Europe, 2007–13. Regional Studies, 51(6), 844–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Surubaru, N.-C. (2017b). Revisiting the Role of Domestic Politics: Politicisation and European Cohesion Policy Performance in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Politics, 33(1), 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Tiemann, G. (2008). Cleavages’ oder, Legacies’? Die Institutionalisierung und Struktur des politischen Wettbewerbs im postsozialistischen Osteuropa. In E. Bos & D. Segert (Eds.), Osteuropäische Demokratien als Trendsetter? Parteien und Parteiensysteme nach dem Ende des Übergangsjahrzehnts (pp. 33–53). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  162. Tosun, J. (2014). Absorption of Regional Funds: A Comparative Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 371–387.Google Scholar
  163. Trauner, F. (2009). Post-accession Compliance with EU Law in Bulgaria and Romania: A Comparative Perspective. European Integration Online Papers, 13, Article 21. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2009-021.pdf. Accessed Jan 2016.
  164. van Biezen, I. (2003). Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. van Biezen, I. (2005). On the Theory and Practice of Party Formation and Adaptation in New Democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 44(1), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  167. Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Divide and Pacify: Strategic Social Policies and Political Protests in Post-communist Democracies. Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  168. Varnagy, R. (2011). Hungary. European Journal of Political Research, 50(7–8), 991–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Verheijen, A. J. G. (2000). Administrative Capacity Development: A Race Against Time? (Working Documents W 107). The Hague: Scientific Council for Government Policy. Available at http://www.wrr.nl/fileadmin/nl/publicaties/DVD_WRR_publicaties_1972-2004/W107_Administrative_capacity_development.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  170. Verheijen, T. (1999). Civil Service Systems in EU Candidate States: Introduction. In T. Verheijen & A. Kotchegura (Eds.), Civil Service Systems in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 85–91). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  171. Verheijen, T. (2007). Administrative Capacity in the New EU Member States: The Limits of Innovation? (World Bank Working Paper No. 115). Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-7155-8. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Wasilewski, J. (1990). The Patterns of Bureaucratic Elite Recruitment in Poland in the 1970s and 1980s. Soviet Studies, 42(4), 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Way, L. A., & Levitsky, S. (2007). Linkage, Leverage, and the Post-communist Divide. East European Politics & Societies, 21(1), 48–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Whitefield, S. (2002). Political Cleavages and Post-communist Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Zubek, R. (2005). Complying with Transposition Commitments in Poland: Collective Dilemmas, Core Executive and Legislative Outcomes. West European Politics, 28(3), 592–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hagemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations