![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
Existing studies of the European Union’s (EU) democratic governance promotion via transgovernmental cooperation in the EU’s neighbourhood seem to take the substance of what is being promoted by the EU for granted. In filling this gap, this article examines the substance of EU democratic governance promotion by assessing (1) to what extent norms of democratic governance appear in EU Twinning projects implemented in the Eastern neighbourhood, and (2) what factors account for differences in the presence of democratic governance norms across those projects. To explain possible variation, the article hypothesizes that the democratic governance substance of Twinning projects will vary with the country’s political liberalization, sector politicization, sector technical complexity, and EU conditionality attached to reform progress in a given policy sector. Data are retrieved from a content analysis of 117 Twinning project fiches from the Eastern neighbourhood and analysed via standard multiple regression. The article finds that the EU mostly promotes moderate, mixed democratic governance substance, which varies across different projects. This variation may be best explained by the level of political liberalization of the beneficiary country and the politicization and technical complexity of the policy sectors and institutions involved in respective Twinning projects.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers, the research team of the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University, and to our colleague to Dr Anne Wetzel for their valuable feedback on the early drafts of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Slaughter, A New World Order; Keohane and Nye, “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations.”
2 Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?”; Freyburg et al., Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation; Szent-Iványi, “The EU’s Support for Democratic Governance in the Eastern Neighbourhood.”
3 European Commission, “Governance in the European Consensus on Development,” 6.
4 Ibid.; Wetzel, “The Promotion of Participatory Governance in the EU’s External Policies”; Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?”
5 Freyburg, “Planting the Seeds of Change Inside?”; Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?”
6 European Commission, “Common Twinning Manual,” 11.
7 Ibid.
8 Freyburg, Skripka, and Wetzel, “Democracy between the Lines?”; Zaharchenko and Goldenman, “Accountability in Governance”; Wetzel, “Governance Perspective”; Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, “EU Democracy Promotion in the Neighbourhood”; Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?”
9 Ibid.
10 Freyburg et al., Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation, 7.
11 Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?”
12 Keohane and Nye, “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations”; Slaughter, A New World Order.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 European Commission, “Governance in the European Consensus on Development,” 16; Carbone, “The European Union, Good Governance and Aid Co-Ordination,” 22.
16 Wetzel and Orbie, The Substance of EU Democracy Promotion.
17 Wetzel, Orbie, and Bossuyt, “Comparative Perspectives on the Substance of EU Democracy Promotion,” 23; Wetzel and Orbie, “Researching the Substance of EU Democracy Promotion,” 574.
18 Ibid., 582–583.
19 Börzel, Pamuk, and Stahn, “The European Union and the Promotion of Good Governance in Its near Abroad”; Burlyuk, “Variation in EU External Policies as a Virtue.”
20 Freyburg, “Transgovernmental Networks as Catalysts for Democratic Change?,” 19.
21 Ibid.
22 Wetzel, “The Promotion of Participatory Governance in the EU’s External Policies.”
23 Interviews were conducted in the EU and the Eastern neighbourhood countries between November 2013 and May 2016.
24 European Commission, “Common Twinning Manual”; Bouscharain and Moreau, “Evaluation of the Institutional Twinning Instrument.”
25 Interview with Twinning fiche drafting expert, Amsterdam, 8 April 2015.
26 Ibid., 11.
27 Ibid., 11.
28 Freyburg et al., Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation; Pickering and Peceny, “Forging Democracy at Gunpoint.”
29 Langbein and Börzel, “Explaining Policy Change in the European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood”; Papadimitriou and Phinnemore, “The Twinning Exercise and Administrative Reform in Romania”; De Wilde, “No Polity for Old Politics?”; Wetzel, “The Promotion of Participatory Governance in the EU’s External Policies.”
30 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security; Haas, Beyond the Nation-State.
31 Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, “EU Rule Transfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.”
32 Dimitrova, “The New Member States of the EU in the Aftermath of Enlargement.”
33 Goodsell, The New Case for Bureaucracy; Gruber, Controlling Bureaucracies; Goodnow, Politics and Administration; Wilson, “The Study of Administration.”
34 Dahl, “System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation.”
35 Gruber, Controlling Bureaucracies.
36 Ademmer and Börzel, “Migration, Energy and Good Governance in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood”; Langbein and Wolczuk, “Convergence without Membership?”; Delcour, “Meandering Europeanisation.”
37 Wetzel, Orbie, and Bossuyt, “Comparative Perspectives on the Substance of EU Democracy Promotion”; Börzel, Pamuk, and Stahn, “The European Union and the Promotion of Good Governance in Its Near Abroad.”
38 European Commission, “Common Twinning Manual”; Bouscharain and Moreau, “Evaluation of the Institutional Twinning Instrument.”
39 Ibid.
40 For example, Freyburg, “Planting the Seeds of Change Inside?”
41 European Commission, “Twinning, TAIEX and SIGMA within the ENPI. ”
42 Interview with Twinning fiche drafting expert, Amsterdam, 8 April 2015.
43 Interview with former Resident Twinning Advisor, Stockholm, 24 March 2016; Bouscharain and Moreau, “Evaluation of the Institutional Twinning Instrument,” 149.
44 Freyburg et al., Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation.
45 Denhardt and Denhardt, The New Public Service; Zaharchenko and Goldenman, “Accountability in Governance.”
46 Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators.”
47 Ibid., 4.
48 Of course, this is a generalization to some extent. Some areas of the judiciary like forensic medicine are highly specialized and do deal with models or lab testing. However, in the process of operationalization, we assess whether the objectives of a particular project have to do with any of those advanced scientific skills.
49 Teddlie and Tashakkori, “Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research.”
50 O’Sullivan, Rassel, and Berner, Research Methods for Public Administrators, 440; Kutner et al., Applied Linear Statistical Models.
51 O’Sullivan, Rassel, and Berner, Research Methods for Public Administrators, 378; Lund and Lund, “Laerd Statistics.”
52 Mean value of transparency across all Twinning fiches is 1.3, accountability – 0.9, and participation – 0.8.
53 Interview with former Twinning participants, Paris (6 April 2016) and Copenhagen (23 March 2016).
54 The concept of Deep and Sustainable Democracy encompasses elections, media freedom, association and assembly rights, human rights, independence of the judiciary, quality of public administration, the fight against corruption, accountability, and democratic control over security and law enforcement institutions. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum, European Integration Index 2014 for Eastern Partnership Countries, 22–23, 73.
55 Franke et al., “The European Union’s Relations with Ukraine and Azerbaijan,” 156.
56 Interview with former Twinning participant, Kyiv, 1 December 2014.
57 Wilson, “The Study of Administration.”
58 Langbein and Wolczuk, “Convergence without Membership?,” 875.
59 Freyburg et al., Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation, 55.
60 Camyar, “On Domestic Determinants and Empirical Relevance.”
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Dmytro Panchuk
Dmytro Panchuk is a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University, focusing on EU transgovernmental cooperation and democracy promotion in the Eastern neighbourhood countries. Email: [email protected].
Fabienne Bossuyt
Fabienne Bossuyt is a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University, studying EU external relations, with a specific focus on the post-Soviet space. Email: [email protected].
Jan Orbie
Jan Orbie is Director of the Centre for EU Studies and Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Ghent University. Focusing on EU trade and development policy, EU global social policy, and EU democracy promotion. Email: [email protected].