![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper aims to explain the weak developmental impact that the third Community Support Framework (CSF) funding had for Greece by adopting a conceptual framework based on the theories of internal and interactive state capacities. It postulates that a series of characteristics of the domestic political economy – clientelism, corruption and low levels of social capital – did not allow the third CSF to substantially alter the endogenous capabilities of the Greek economy. Most of the Operational Programmes (OPs) faced significant delays whilst the strengthening of the monitoring procedures attempted by the Commission – exemplified through the ‘n+2’ rule – only served to exacerbate the situation. The reinforcement of the domestic administrative and territorial reforms that will improve the capacities of the Greek state is suggested as a possible way forward.
Acknowledgements
This paper formed part of my PhD dissertation conducted at the University of Sussex. I would like to thank my supervisor Francis McGowan for his assistance throughout my PhD research and the University of Sussex for providing me with a fellowship that covered my tuition fees. Also, I would like to thank Stella Ladi for taking the time to provide me with helpful comments and suggestions as well as an anonymous referee for constructive feedback. Finally, I would like to thank all the employees of the Community Support Framework managing agencies in Greece and the employees of the European Commission who assisted me and gave me their time during the interviews cited. All errors or omissions are mine.
Notes
1. It absorbs more than one third of the total EU budget.
2. The objectives of the EURP are enshrined in the EC Treaty. The overall objective of the policy is the achievement of economic and social cohesion through the reduction of disparities of socio-economic development amongst its territories and the spreading of the advantages of the common market more equally across the EU.
3. The fourth programming period which in Greece is implemented through the NSRF initiated in 2007. It involves the implementation of five regional and eight sectoral OPs. Around €20 million are earmarked as Community contribution. In all previous programming periods there have been delays in implementing the programmes, which basically ‘start’ a couple of years before the supposed end date. Also, in all previous programming periods the domestic authorities required and achieved significant expansion of the time frame for the programme (Moussouroulis Citation2010). Hence, the examination of the patterns of implementation of the NSRF in 2011 would be premature and the paper focuses on the third CSF, which continues to finance projects even in the current programming period.
4. The first Cohesion report was published in 1996 and the latest in November 2010.
5. Petrakos and Artelaris Citation2008 develop a new measure for the measurement of regional inequalities that of Composite Index of Development and Prosperity and identify significant patterns of divergence amongst the Greek regions. Caraveli and Tsionas Citation2011 employ more traditional methods of GDP measurement and reach similar conclusions. The fact that in the current period 8 of the 13 Greek regions still have a GDP bellow and the 75% of the EU average only serves to confirm these findings.
6. The role of the judiciary in supporting the process of economic development as one of the many independent institutions that guarantee the rule of law is also stressed by Sen (Citation2001).
7. These are three of the seven elements that Sotiropoulos (Citation2007a, 200–2) identifies as characteristic of the southern European bureaucracies and that largely apply in the Greek case; the remaining four are discussed later in this section.
8. It must be noted that because of the chaotic nature of the civil service in Greece, there are only estimations available as regards the exact number of public sector employees. This is because there is still no agreement as to what actually constitutes the public sector. For example, it is not clear whether the employees of quangos or companies of the wider public sector – such as the Olympic Airways – should be included in that number.
9. see Appendix.
10. A full list of the interviewees is available from the author.
11. 1989–1993 and 1994–2000.
12. www.hellaskps.gr.
13. Minutes of the monitoring committee of the third CSF (Citation2007).
14. Council Regulation 1260/1999.
15. Interview with Head of Unit at the Managing Authority of the CSF.
16. Interview with Head of Unit at the Managing Authority for the sectoral OP ‘Health and Welfare’.
17. Interview with Head of Cohesion Fund Monitoring Committee.
18. Interview with Head of Unit at the Managing Authority of the CSF.
19. Interview with Head of Unit of the Managing Authority of the CSF.
20. Interview with Head of Unit of the Managing Authority of the sectoral OP ‘Railways, Airports, Public Transport’.
21. Interview with Head of Unit for the monitoring of sectoral OPs of the Managing Authority of the CSF.
22. Interview with Head of Unit DG Agriculture, European Commission.
23. Interview with former Head of the MA for the regional OP ‘Central Greece’.
24. Interview Head of Unit of the Managing Authority of the regional OP for Western Macedonia.
25. Using national celebrities.
26. Interview with former Head of Unit of the Managing Authority of the regional OP for Western Macedonia.
27. ta nea, 10 October 2005.
28. This information was released by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to the SYN MEP Dimitris Papadimoulis after a question that was put forward from the MEP and is reproduced in eleytherotypia, 15 October 2006.
29. ta nea, 24 March 2006
30. Decision C (2008) 8573 dated 15 December 2008.
31. Decision C (2005) 1731.
32. See Giannitsis (Citation2008) for a discussion of that in relation to Greece.