![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Starting from the assumption that projects have become an important form of social organisation in contemporary working life, we examine the proliferation of ‘projects’ in public policy, especially in European Union (EU) policy-making. Project logic constitutes an influential element of policy implementation in Europe; and it substantially influences the way EU policies are implemented all over the EU territory and beyond. Drawing on sociological takes on public policy instrumentation, we discuss the emergence, the establishment and major cultural logics of project-based policy funding. We show that EU funding constitutes an own field of expertise, a distinct ‘project world’, so to speak, with specific standards, regulations, practical conventions and a particular rhetoric. This brings about an increasing expertisation of EU policy-making and certain exclusionary effects, despite all efforts to bring the Union closer to the citizens’ through project funding.
Acknowledgements
This article was written within the framework of the research project ‘EU professionalism: A sociological study on the professionalisation of EU expertise’ funded from 2012 to 2018 by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We thank Matthias Posvic, our former team member, for his input and Georg Vobruba for his support. Many thanks also go to Steffen Mau, Stefan Bernhard, Maurizo Bach, two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. We are particularly grateful to Ricca Edmondson for her challenging comments and for her thorough and thoughtful guidance through the final phases of revision.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Along with many other popular management techniques, PM is an offspring of modern management sciences from the beginning of the twentieth century. It is particularly associated with the founding fathers of scientific management: Frederick Taylor (1856–1915) and his students Henry Gantt (1861–1919) and Henri Fayol (1841–1925). However, it took until the end of the 1950s for PM to become an official management model. In this context, the foundation of PM associations and networks also played a major role. One major organisation, for instance, is the Project Management Institute (PMI), founded in the US in 1969. Today, it has more than 700,000 members across the world. One of the largest European associations, with around 20,000 members, is the Association for Project Management (APM), which was founded in 1972 and is located in Great Britain.
2. A famous example of numerous publications of this kind is the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK© Guide) edited by the Project Management Institute (Citation2013). However, there is no unified standard PM model. On the contrary, there are numerous project management tools and models of varying degrees of sophistication, ranging from simple hands-on management schemes, such as the famous Gantt charts, to more comprehensive computer-based planning and simulation tools (Lock, Citation2013; Project Management Institute, Citation2013; Stevens & Johnson, Citation2002). One concept, nonetheless, which is central to all PM models, is the idea of a project lifecycle (PLC) describing the basic phases of a project and the various PM steps. It is the essence of PM. The PLC always spans from the initiation and conception phases of a project, via detailed planning and execution (or project implementation) phases, to project closure.
3. According to Garel (Citation2013, p. 666), the first PM techniques and practices had been developed in fact by engineers involved in the planning and management of larger research and construction projects funded by the US government between 1940s and 1960s, such as large-scale military and aerospace projects. Beyond this, the practice of project funding has also been applied widely and developed further in the structures of international development cooperation which have expanded since the mid-twentieth century (Degnbol-Martinussen & Engberg-Pedersen, Citation2003, p. 40).
4. In fact, Godenhjelm et al. (Citation2015, pp. 330–333) identify a number of internal and external ‘push and pull drivers of projectification’ in the Swedish public sector, of which they see the EU structural fund system as the ‘most consequential’ one. Kovách and Kučerová (Citation2006, Citation2009) even speak of the emergence of a new ‘project class’ in Central and Eastern European EU member states as a result of the influx of substantial amounts of EU structural funds over the past few years.
5. Programming is a central tool of project management planning. It is applied to facilitate planning and implementing a larger number of individual projects under one common theme (See Maylor, Brady, Cooke-Davies, and Hodgson Citation2006).
6. We use the notion ‘project world’ analytically, above all (see also Bröckling, Citation2016, p. 170ff.). However, this notion is also naturally used by practitioners in the field of EU affairs itself. For instance, we have found the term in our content analysis used by a German consulting company offering information on the ‘EU funding and project world’ (‘EU-Förder- und Projektwelt’) in its newsletters. See: http://www.emcra.eu/eu-foerdertipp/eu-foerdertipp/article/institutional-readiness-fuer-eu-foerderung-und-europaeische-projekte/?cHash=6e5e78e9128a7d005f8aa2e255c8780e.
7. For more information, see http://horizontal-europeanization.eu/en/about/sp5/.
8. The three major allocation measures for the EU budget, apart from direct payments, are (1) tendering of EU public contracts, (2) project funding or grants and (3) loans. Project funding is by far the most important measure in terms of spending. The EU’s biggest and by far most important area of project-based policy implementation is the Cohesion Policy. About EUR 352 billion (or 33% of the total EU budget) has been allocated for the period 2014–2020 for the promotion of ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’. Other policies, such as the implementation of rural development and environmental measures (about 9% of total EU budget), the funding of neighbourhood and external development policies (about 6% of total EU budget) and numerous initiatives allocated to the policy priority ‘Competitiveness for growth and jobs’ (13% of total EU budget) are implemented in similar project-based terms to the Cohesion Policy (see European Commission, Citation2013, p. 7). For an insight into projects carried out through EU funding by country, see http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/beneficiaries_en.htm.
9. Indeed, development cooperation can be seen as an important laboratory and promoter of project-based funding in structural policies and development promotion. In this context, international organisations such as the UNDP, the World Bank, the OSCE or the OECD have also played an important role in elaborating and promoting PM standards in development cooperation, something which still continues today. See, for instance, United Nations Development Programme (Citation2009), OSCE (Citation2010) and OECD (Citation2010).
10. Authors’ emphasis. See, also, the information provided at the current web portal of the European Commission, DG-Regio: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/how/principles/
11. A similar story can be told, for example, about the development of a distinct European research agenda. No distinct European research policy existed until the beginning of the 1980s. In 1983, the European Commission started funding its first ‘framework programme’, supporting a limited number of projects. Today, the promotion of research and innovation within the ‘European Research Area’ is an important EU policy field under ‘Horizon 2020’ (European Commission, Citation2015, pp. 2–7).
12. The following depiction is a result of content analyses of websites and official EU documents. All highlighted terms and notions are official wordings that were found in the various texts and which are commonly used in this particular area of social practice.
13. See, for instance, the model provided on the Alpine Space Programme web page, a large transnational programme fostering trans-border cooperation amongst citizens from different Alpine areas: http://www.alpine-space.eu/project-management/project-life-cycle/explore-the-cycle.
14. It must be pointed out, however, that the flagship initiatives are also strongly funded by the Structural and Investment Funds, especially the measures funded by the Cohesion Policy. For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/flagship-initiatives/index_en.htm.
15. Co-funding via Cohesion Policy depends on the economic performance of the territorial area where a project is supposed to be implemented: 8085% co-financing in ‘less developed regions’, but just 50% co-financing in ‘more developed’ areas. For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/ financial-management/.
16. See for an overview of all national and regional managing authorities in EU Cohesion Policy: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/managing-authorities/.
17. See, for instance, the information provided on ‘evaluation’ by the Commission in the field of Cohesion Policy http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ or the detailed ‘Cohesion Reports’: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/information/cohesion-report/.
18. See, for instance, the information and activities listed on the web page of the Alpine Space Programme: http://www.de.alpine-space.eu/. There are several activities aiming to familiarise potential beneficiaries with the standards and organising principles of the project world of EU funding.
19. An example of the services offered by consulting providers: http://www.open-europe-consulting.de.
20. Even the most prestigious educational institute in EU affairs, the College of Europe located in Bruges and Natolin, offers both postgraduate studies and further education programmes on EU funding, tailored to the needs of practitioners and specialists available at https://www.coleurope.eu/website/training/development-office/professional-training-programme. In addition, see, for instance, the Master of European Administration in Speyer, Germany and the Master in European Governance and Administration (MEGA), addressing officials working in national and regional administrations: http://www.uni-speyer.de/de/studium/master-of-european-governance-and-administration.php.
21. For example, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) offers such a certificate for staff working in public and in particular university administration (http://www.eubuero.de/zertifikat.htm).