Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Funds in the New Member States

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

  • 236 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These aspects are at the same time also important in some old member states (see the conclusion for a further discussion).

  2. 2.

    In contrast to patronage as an electoral resource and a distinct party-voter linkage strategy (Kitschelt and Wilkinson 2007: 7).

  3. 3.

    The selection of the SGI ‘executive capacity ’ indicator is discussed in greater detail in Sect. 4.4.

  4. 4.

    Minor exceptions are block parties such as the Polish PSL (Bingen 2008: 81).

  5. 5.

    The phenomenon of weakening party-society linkages and parties’ subsequent turn to the state for resources is also stressed as a development in West European party systems (Katz and Mair 1995). Still, these parties have most often still strong organizational legacies from their time as mass parties, and tend to seek support through official state party finance, resulting rather in “inter-party collusion” (Katz and Mair 2009: 755). In contrast, the presence of a delegitimized state, a strongly antagonizing party competition, and the necessity to build parties from scratch make extensive party politicization and patronage in the post-communist region much more likely and intense. I agree that the phenomenon can be studied for Europe as a whole (see also the conclusion on this), but I argue that the communist legacy makes the CEE countries especially prone to this practice, a fact which is also underlined by the comparative findings gathered in studies taking a European perspective (where no CEE country is below the European average of politicization ) (Kopecký and Mair 2012a: 367).

  6. 6.

    This finding is supported by other studies that find that funding increases with congruence between the leading regional party and the leading national party (Chalmers 2013: 826). In their analysis of sub-state governments in Germany, Dellmuth and Stoffel found that “there is robust and strong evidence that recipient sub-state governments provide more funds to districts […] in which they already have high electoral support” (Dellmuth and Stoffel 2012: 427, and also a high turnout, according to Schraff 2014: 286 working with the same data). In Italy, the regional governments of Abruzzo and Puglia were found “to allocate funds with an eye to the electoral return that they may bring” (Piattoni and Smyrl 2003: 144–145). In a similar vein, other studies found also a positive effect in the allocation of funds for regions with many swing voters (Bodenstein and Kemmerling 2011: 17; similar Bouvet and Dall’Erba 2010, but see Dellmuth 2011: 1029). Still, these studies never report ‘all-or-nothing’-fundamental changes upon the advent of a new government in office.

  7. 7.

    Support for the assumed importance of the occurrence of politicization in contrast to its presence as a phenomenon is also stressed in different studies. While political changes go hand in hand with low absorption levels, this is not necessarily confirmed for party politicization (Buzogány and Korkut 2013: 1558) or even corruption per se (Beugelsdijk and Eijffinger 2005: 50). Use of funds with an eye on the electoral return can work well if the focus is not too narrowly on a few particularistic groups (Piattoni and Smyrl 2003: 145). Evidence for Poland suggests that ‘bonding social capital’, that is the rather inward-looking type of social capital focussing on one’s own kinship (in contrast to generalized trust in the society), is beneficial for a stringent absorption of funds (Lackowska-Madurowicz and Swianiewicz 2013: 1410). Thus, it is most likely rather the competition of special interests, in contrast to their existence causing absorption problems .

  8. 8.

    PHARE stands for ‘Poland and Hungary : Assistance for Restructuring their Economies’ (Beichelt 2004: 40).

  9. 9.

    NUTS refers to the ‘Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics ’, thus the subdivision of member states into smaller units, for example for purposes of fund allocation .

  10. 10.

    ISPA and PHARE combined, 2000–2006 period.

  11. 11.

    For example, the Lithuanian Labour Party, a populist newcomer, tried to alter the countries’ management and control system for the 2007–2013 financing period in order to have complete control over programme implementation at the level of the ministries it controlled at that time. Still, an insider from the centralized MA in Lithuania stressed that when the Labour Party tried to push for this decentralization “we convinced them that they are not able to do that” (LT4 2014).

  12. 12.

    They are set for member states whose GDP per capita was below 85% of the EU 25 average between 2001 and 2003 at 85% for both the structural funds as well as the cohesion fund , and for both the convergence and the competitiveness and employment objective (Annex III to Council Regulation (General Regulation)). This provision includes all central and eastern European member states as well as Greece, Cyprus, Malta, and Portugal.

  13. 13.

    On such use of social policies see similar ‘Compensation as a Government Tactic’ as presented by Greskovits (1998: 137–154) or ‘Strategic Social Policies’ by Vanhuysse (2006: 136).

  14. 14.

    “INUS conditions are […] neither individually necessary nor individually sufficient for an outcome of interest. Instead, they are essential (i.e. non-redundant) components of an overall configuration of variable values that is sufficient for the outcome ” (Mahoney and Goertz 2006: 24–25).

References

  • 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 

  • Åslund, A. (2010). The Last Shall Be the First: The East European Financial Crisis. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beichelt, T. (2004). Die Europäische Union nach der Osterweiterung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blom-Hansen, J. (2005). Principals, Agents, and the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4), 624–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, S., & Petrova, V. (2013). National Subversion of Supranational Goals: ‘Pork-Barrel’ Politics and EU Regional Aid. Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1599–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Buzogány, A. (2012). Accelerating or Back-Pedalling? L’Europe en Formation (Vol. 364, pp. 111–127). Brussels: Centre International de Formation Européenne.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzogány, A., & Korkut, U. (2013). Administrative Reform and Regional Development Discourses in Hungary: Europeanisation Going NUTS? Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1555–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Connolly, R. (2012). The Determinants of the Economic Crisis in Post-socialist Europe. Europe–Asia Studies, 64(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Crouch, C. (2008). What Will Follow the Demise of Privatised Keynesianism? Political Quarterly, 79(4), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dellmuth, L. M. (2011). The Cash Divide: The Allocation of European Union Regional Grants. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, V., Goetz, K. H., & Wollmann, H. (2006). Governing After Communism: Institutions and Policymaking. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova, A. L. (2002). Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EUs Administrative Capacity Requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Dotti, N. F. (2013). The Unbearable Instability of Structural Funds’ Distribution. European Planning Studies, 21(4), 596–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Druckman, J. N., & Roberts, A. (2007). Communist Successor Parties and Coalition Formation in Eastern Europe. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Fink-Hafner, D. (2012). Slovenia. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 51(1), 288–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin, J. (2010). A Tool to Evaluate State Capacity in Post-communist Countries, 1989–2006. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 654–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye, T. (2002). The Perils of Polarization: Economic Performance in the Postcommunist World. World Politics, 54(3), 308–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye, T. (2010). Building States and Markets After Communism: The Perils of Polarized Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2008). The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, K. H. (2001). Making Sense of Post-communist Central Administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization? Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 1032–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabbe, H. (2001). How Does Europeanization Affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, Diffusion and Diversity. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 1013–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greskovits, B. (1998). The Political Economy of Protest and Patience: East European and Latin American Transformations Compared. Budapest: Central European University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. (2001). Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in New Democracies: East Central Europe. Comparative Politics, 34(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. (2006). Authoritarian Determinants of Democratic Party Competition: The Communist Successor Parties in East Central Europe. Party Politics, 12(3), 415–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. (2007). Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-communist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, A., & Luong, P. J. (2002). Reconceptualizing the State: Lessons from Post-communism. Politics & Society, 30(4), 529–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverland, M., & Romeijn, M. (2007). Do Member States Make European Policies Work? Analysing the EU Transposition Deficit. Public Administration, 85(3), 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Holmes, L. (1997). Post-communism: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikstens, J. (2012). Latvia. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 51(1), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (2009). The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(4), 753–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). Europe Managing the Crisis: The Politics of Fiscal Consolidation. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kitschelt, H. (1995). Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions. Party Politics, 1(4), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. (1999). Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopecký, P., & Spirova, M. (2011). ‘Jobs for the Boys’? Patterns of Party Patronage in Post-communist Europe. West European Politics, 34(5), 897–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornai, J. (1995). Das sozialistische System: Die politische Ökonomie des Kommunismus. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, R. (2005). Cohesion Policy in the European Union: The Building of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Linek, L. (2014). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 53(1), 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • LT4. (2014). Interview in Vilnius with Lithuanian Official on 7 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. (1997). Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2004). Civil Service Reform in Post-communist Europe: The Bumpy Road to Depoliticisation. West European Politics, 27(1), 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2011). The Durability of EU Civil Service Policy in Central and Eastern Europe After Accession. Governance, 24(2), 231–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milio, S. (2008). How Political Stability Shapes Administrative Performance: The Italian Case. West European Politics, 31(5), 915–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Muraközy, B., & Telegdy, Á. (2016). Political Incentives and State Subsidy Allocation: Evidence from Hungarian Municipalities. European Economic Review, 89, 324–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myant, M., & Drahokoupil, J. (2012). International Integration, Varieties of Capitalism and Resilience to Crisis in Transition Economies. Europe–Asia Studies, 64(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • O’Dwyer, C. (2004). Runaway State Building; How Political Parties Shape States in Postcommunist Eastern Europe. World Politics, 56(4), 520–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, C. (2006b). Runaway State-Building: Patronage Politics and Democratic Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Olejniczak, K. (2013). Mechanisms Shaping an Evaluation System—A Case Study of Poland 1999–2010. Europe–Asia Studies, 65(8), 1642–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pedersen, M. N. (1979). The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility. European Journal of Political Research, 7(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pop-Eleches, G. (2010). Throwing Out the Bums: Protest Voting and Unorthodox Parties After Communism. World Politics, 62(2), 221–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Przeworski, A. (1995). Sustainable Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley et al.: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Set Relations in Social Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rynck, S. D., & McAleavey, P. (2001). The Cohesion Deficit in Structural Fund Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 541–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-method Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedelmeier, U. (2008). After Conditionality: Post-accession Compliance with EU Law in East Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 806–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedelmeier, U. (2012). Is Europeanisation Through Conditionality Sustainable? Lock-in of Institutional Change After EU Accession. West European Politics, 35(1), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Spirova, M., & Kolarova, R. (2010). Bulgaria. European Journal of Political Research, 49(7–8), 909–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (1990). Privatization in Hungary: From Plan to Market or From Plan to Clan? Eastern European Politics and Societies, 4(3), 351–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. W. (2002). Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-communist Transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tosun, J. (2014). Absorption of Regional Funds: A Comparative Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 371–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • van Biezen, I. (2003). Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Divide and Pacify: Strategic Social Policies and Political Protests in Post-communist Democracies. Budapest: Central European University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnagy, R. (2011). Hungary. European Journal of Political Research, 50(7–8), 991–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wasilewski, J. (1990). The Patterns of Bureaucratic Elite Recruitment in Poland in the 1970s and 1980s. Soviet Studies, 42(4), 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Way, L. A., & Levitsky, S. (2007). Linkage, Leverage, and the Post-communist Divide. East European Politics & Societies, 21(1), 48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitefield, S. (2002). Political Cleavages and Post-communist Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zubek, R. (2005). Complying with Transposition Commitments in Poland: Collective Dilemmas, Core Executive and Legislative Outcomes. West European Politics, 28(3), 592–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Christian Hagemann

Authors
  1. Christian Hagemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hagemann, C. (2019). Absorption of EU Funds in a Post-communist and Post-accession Context. In: EU Funds in the New Member States. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02092-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation