This study develops a perspective of ambivalent dynamics of institution building in EU applicant countries. The dissemination of institutional design differs in effect according to
the sector which is being focused. For the case of Romania it is stated that, in the economic dimension, a neoliberal blueprint was diffused while in the politico-administrative dimension, the EU lacked both, a clear best-practice and strong instruments of enforcement. Treating the weakness of statehood as the dependent variable, in both sectors however, tendencies to the reinforcement of patrimonialist structures can be observed. Those forms of patrimonialism breed problems of corruption and a limited possibility to absorb EU funding. In each case there are cross-sectoral effects observable.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INITIAL STEPS OF THE ANALYSIS
2.1 DEVELOPING THE ARGUMENT
2.2 CASE SELECTION
3. IN SEARCH FOR A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 EUROPEANIZATION: HOW EU PRESSURES HAVE DOMESTIC POLICY-OUTCOMES
3.2 NIE: UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF ECONOMIC REGIMES IN TRANSITION
4. THE EU IMPACT ON THE POLITICO-ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERE
4.1 ASSESSING GENERAL IMPACT MECHANISMS
4.2 PATRIMONIALISM, CORRUPTION AND ROMANIAN CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
5. THE EU IMPACT ON THE ECONOMIC SPHERE
5.1 HOW INSTITUTIONAL BLUEPRINTS BREED PATRIMONIALISM
5.2 THE PROBLEM OF EU FUND ABSORPTION
6. CONCLUSIONS
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to trace the processes of institutional diffusion and Europeanization in Romania during its EU accession period, specifically examining how different institutional blueprints impacted the country's economic and politico-administrative spheres. The research explores the causal linkages between EU-led reforms, domestic institutional weaknesses, and the persistence of patrimonial structures.
- Analysis of institutional adjustment in Romania during pre-EU accession.
- Distinction between economic and politico-administrative reform outcomes.
- Investigation into the influence of "Shock Therapy" and neoliberal blueprints.
- Evaluation of patrimonialism, corruption, and the effectiveness of EU "Twinning" programs.
- Assessment of state capacity regarding EU fund absorption.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 Patrimonialism, corruption and Romanian civil service reform
These questions can be answered with respect to the problem of corruption in the Romanian civil service. On the eve of accession, corruption and institutional stability were identified as the two main problems of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s advancement to EU membership (cp. Rehn, 2006). Thus, the accession treaties were provided with so-called post-accession safeguard clauses which offer a legal basis for the community’s monitoring exercises in order to ensure the willingness to improve in these problematic areas during 3 years after accession in 2007 (cp. Noutcheva, 2006).
Romania’s traditional liability for corruption does not puzzle if one looks back on the legacies of the past. Nicolae Ceausescu, the authoritarian leader of the country prior to 1989 ruled in a highly patrimonial way. The regime’s main characteristic was a high personalization in all echelons. Out of a neo-Weberian perspective, the phenomenon becomes explicit. What is well elaborated for the case of African development economies (Le Vine, 1980; Mkandawire, 2001) and has been already stated in section 2 for a cluster of transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe is also true for Romania’s public sector: Neo-patrimonialism is about state-society relationships that are characterized by a coexistence of formal rules and patrimonialist contact systems. Patrimonial coordination mechanisms differ from procedures which embrace formal legal rationality in terms of the personal nature of accountability patterns. While in the first case, legitimacy and accountability is provided by the accomplishment of formal rules and regulations, the latter forms of accountability refer to patron-client relationships which only stress the direct responsibility to the person of the ruler. Ceausescu’s rule was a patrimonial one with respect to two main features. In Weberian terms, a separation of office and officeholder was not in place.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter contextualizes the study within the Europeanization debate and highlights the disparity in reform outcomes between economic and administrative sectors in transition states.
2. INITIAL STEPS OF THE ANALYSIS: The author defines the research scope and explains the selection of Romania as a representative case study for analyzing diffusion processes in post-communist states.
3. IN SEARCH FOR A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: This section establishes the analytical matrix by integrating theories of Europeanization and New Institutional Economics to understand the mechanisms of institutional change.
4. THE EU IMPACT ON THE POLITICO-ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERE: The chapter assesses the limited success of EU administrative reforms in Romania and links the persistence of patrimonialism to the nature of past and present state-society relations.
5. THE EU IMPACT ON THE ECONOMIC SPHERE: This section analyzes how neoliberal blueprints, while formally adopted, often triggered negative externalities and entrenched patrimonial structures within the Romanian market.
6. CONCLUSIONS: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, confirming that the lack of clear, enforceable blueprints and internal state-society path dependencies hampered the effectiveness of EU integration programs.
Keywords
Romania, Europeanization, Transition, Patrimonialism, European Union, Shock Therapy, Administrative Reform, Public Management, Statehood, Institutional Diffusion, Corruption, Civil Service, Twinning, Policy-making, Neoliberalism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper examines the institutional adjustments in Romania during its accession to the European Union, specifically comparing the differing impacts of EU pressure on the economic and the politico-administrative sectors.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the theory of Europeanization, the impact of "Shock Therapy" in post-communist states, the persistence of neo-patrimonial structures, and the challenges of bureaucratic capacity building.
What is the central research question?
The study asks how and why the dissemination of institutional designs leads to divergent outcomes in the economic versus the politico-administrative sphere, and what role internal domestic factors play in these processes.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The study employs a qualitative country case study analysis, drawing upon institutional economics, sociological institutionalism, and existing literature on Europeanization and comparative political science.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body investigates the mechanisms of EU influence, evaluates the historical legacy of the Ceausescu regime, and analyzes the failures and successes of various reform programs, such as the EU Twinning initiative.
What are the characterizing keywords?
The work is characterized by terms such as Europeanization, Patrimonialism, Romania, Institutional Diffusion, Statehood, and EU Accession.
How does the author explain the failure of administrative reforms in Romania?
The author argues that reforms were hindered by the absence of a clear administrative blueprint from the EU, combined with the resilience of entrenched patrimonial and patron-client power structures that resisted true transformation.
What is the conclusion regarding "Shock Therapy"?
The conclusion indicates that while "Shock Therapy" was effectively used to implement neoliberal economic blueprints, it failed to build strong democratic institutions and instead reinforced existing patrimonial tendencies by weakening the state's regulatory capacity.
- Quote paper
- Boris Kleemann (Author), 2009, Blueprints, Red Tape, and Shades of Gray. The Chromatics of Romania’s accession to the European Union in economic and administrative perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/135715
