Capacity or Preferences? Explaining the Implementation of the European Integration Fund

  • Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


This chapter looks at another aspect of implementation: the actual use of the fund. Three years after the closure of the implementation period, only 80% of the money available has been used by EU member states. This chapter draws from the literature on structural funds and compliance in order to delve into the determinants of this implementation gap. Using multilevel regression analysis, it tests the effect of capacity against preferences in a comparative fashion. Strong support is found for capacity factors and none for preferences. Even so, not all aspects of capacity matter.


European integration fund Implementation Implementation gap Structural funds Absorption Capacity Preferences Compliance Time-series cross-section 


  1. Scholarship and Expert ReferencesGoogle Scholar
  2. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2007). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Limited. Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The Case for Regional Development Intervention: Place-Based Versus Place Neutral Approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, N. (2006). Time-Series–Cross-Section Methods. No. Draft as of June 5, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Börzel, T. A. (2001). Non-compliance in the European Union: Pathology or Statistical Artefact? Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5), 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bücker-Gärtner, H. (2011). Europe Needs Innovative Ideas to Integrate Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities—Challenges and Creative Activities in Education and Civil Society (A Comparison of Five European Countries). Berlin: Berlin School of Economics and Law.Google Scholar
  9. Carrera, S., & Faure Atger, A. (2011). Integration as a Two-Way Process in the EU? Assessing the Relationship Between the European Integration Fund and the Common Basic Principles. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Collett, E. (2011). Immigrant Integration in Europe in a Time of Austerity. Migration Policy Institute. Available at Last Consulted November 12, 2016.
  11. CSES—Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services. (2013). Study on Practices of Integration of Third-Country Nationals at Local and Regional Level in the European Union. Otford: Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. European Commission. (2011). The 2012 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., & Treib, O. (2007). Worlds of Compliance: Why Leading Approaches to European Union Implementation Are Only “Sometimes-True Theories”. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischler, F. (2014). Integration Policy Netherlands Country Report (Interact Research Report 2014/15).Google Scholar
  17. Geddes, A., & Achtnich, M. (2015). Research-Policy Dialogues in the European Union. In P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating Immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues (pp. 293–314). Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Series.Google Scholar
  18. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green-Pedersen, C., & Mortensen, P. B. (2013). Policy Agenda-Setting Studies: Attention, Politics and the Public. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 167–174). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Groenendijk, K. (2004). Legal Concepts of Integration in EU Migration Law. European Journal of Migration and Law, 6(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, L. C. (2012). Statistics with Stata: Updated for Version 12 (8th ed.). Boston: Brooks and Cole-Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  22. Hapenciuc, C. V., Moroşan, A. A., & Gaube, G. A. (2013). Absorption of Structural Funds—International Comparisons and Correlations. Procedia Economics and Finance, 6, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hepburn, E. (2010). “Citizens of the Region”: Party Conceptions of Regional Citizenship and Immigrant Integration. European Journal of Political Research, 50(4), 504–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, No. 258).Google Scholar
  25. Howlett, M., & Giest, S. (2013). Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  26. Keating, M. (2009). Social Citizenship, Devolution and Policy Divergence. In S. L. Greer (Ed.), Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK (pp. 97–116). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kemmerling, A., & Bodenstein, T. (2006). Partisan Politics in Regional Redistribution: Do Parties Affect the Distribution of EU Structural Funds across Regions? European Union Politics, 7(3), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. König, T., & Luetgert, B. (2009). Troubles with Transposition? Explaining Trends in Member-State Notification and the Delayed Transposition of EU Directives. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 163–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lampinen, R., & Uusikylä, P. (1998). Implementation Deficit? Why Member States Do Not Comply with EU Directives?’ Scandinavian Political Studies, 21(3), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Les Echos. (2015, August 1). L’immigration, Principale Preoccupation Des Europeens. Les Echos.Google Scholar
  31. Majone, G. (1999). The Regulatory State and Its Legitimacy Problems. West European Politics, 22(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mandin, J. (2014). An Overview of Integration Policies in Belgium (Interact Research Report 2014/20).Google Scholar
  33. Mbaye, H. A. D. (2001). Why National States Comply with Supranational Law: Explaining Implementation Infringements in the European Union, 1972–1993. European Union Politics, 2(3), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendez, C. (2013). The Post-2013 Reform of EU Cohesion Policy and the Place-Based Narrative. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Mouritsen, P., & Hovmark Jensen, C. (2014). Integration Policies in Denmark (INTERACT Research Report 2014/06).Google Scholar
  37. Mulcahy, S. (2011). Europe’s Migrant Policies: Illusions of Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, C. (2009). Immigration, Integration and Citizenship in European Union Law: The Position of Third Country Nationals. Hibernian Law Journal, 8, 155–177.Google Scholar
  39. NEI Regional and Urban Development. (2002). Key Indicators for Candidate Countries to Effectively Manage the Structural Funds. Rotterdam: NEI Regional and Urban Development.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2016). Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Europe. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Ospina, R., & Ferrari, S. L. P. (2012). A General Class of Zero-or-One Inflated Beta Regression Models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(6), 1609–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poppelaars, C., & Scholten, P. (2008). Two Worlds Apart: The Divergence of National and Local Immigrant Integration Policies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society, 40(4), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pratt, S. (2015). EU Policymaking and Research: Case Studies of the Communication on a Community Immigration Policy and the Common Basic Principles for Integration. In P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating Immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues (pp. 117–131). Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Series.Google Scholar
  44. Pridham, G. (1994). National Environmental Policy-making in the European Framework: Spain, Greece and Italy in Comparison. Regional Politics and Policy, 4(1), 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramboll. (2011). Synthesis of the National Evaluation Reports on Implementation of Actions Co Financed by the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals from 2007 to 2009 and Report at European Union Level Final Report. Brussels: Ramboll.Google Scholar
  46. Ramboll. (2013). Synthesis of the National Evaluation Reports on the Results and Impacts of Actions Co-Financed by the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals from 2007 to 2010. Brussels: Ramboll.Google Scholar
  47. Saurugger, S., & Terpan, F. (2013). Resisting EU Norms. A Framework for Analysis. HAL Archives Ouvertes.Google Scholar
  48. Schnapper, D. (1994). The Debate on Immigration and the Crisis of National Identity. West European Politics, 17(2), 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholten, P., & Penninx, R. (2016). The Multilevel Governance of Migration and Integration. In Integration Processes and Policies in Europe. Contexts, Levels and Actors (pp. 91–108). Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Series.Google Scholar
  50. Szyszczak, E. (2006). Experimental Governance: The Open Method of Coordination. European Law Journal, 12(4), 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Testa, M. R. (2014). The Contribution of Migration to the Demography of Europe Between 1991 and 2011—An Overview. (Fondazione ISMU, KING Project, Desk Research, No. 19).Google Scholar
  52. Thomson, R., Torenvlied, R., & Arregui, J. (2007). The Paradox of Compliance: Infringements and Delays in Transposing European Union Directives. British Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 685.Google Scholar
  53. Thränhardt, D. (2014). The State of European Integration Governance: A Comparative Evaluation (Fondazione ISMU, KING Project, Desk Research Paper, No. 7).Google Scholar
  54. Tosun, J. (2014). Absorption of Regional Funds: A Comparative Analysis. JCMS. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and Complying with EU Governance Outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance, 9(5), 1–47.Google Scholar
  56. Velluti, S. (2007). What European Union Strategy for Integrating Migrants? The Role of OMC Soft Mechanisms in the Development of an EU Immigration Policy. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wischenbart, R. (1994). National Identity and Immigration in Austria—Historical Framework and Political Dispute. West European Politics, 17(2), 72–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zincone, G., Penninx, R., & Borkert, M. (2011). Migration Policymaking in Europe: The Dynamics of Actors and Contexts in Past and Present. Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Series.Google Scholar
  59. EU Acts and Other Official DocumentsGoogle Scholar
  60. C. (2008). 795—European Commission (2008). Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 laying down rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/435/EC establishing the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ as regards Member States’ management and control systems, the rules for administrative and financial management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co-financed by the Fund.Google Scholar
  61. COM (2003) 336 Final—European Commission. (2003). Communication from the Commission on Immigration, Integration and Employment.Google Scholar
  62. Council of the European Union 5578/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  63. European Council. (1999). Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions.Google Scholar
  64. European Court of Auditors. (2012). Do the European Integration Fund and European Refugee Fund Contribute Effectively to the Integration of Third-Country.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem
    • 1
  1. 1.Fondazione ISMU and University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations