Dynamics of Regionalisation and the Impact of the EU: Comparing Regional Reforms in Romania and Turkey

Abstract

This article examines the institutional and governance effects of regional policy reforms in Romania and Turkey during their respective periods as EU candidate countries. First, the article aims to disentangle the relative impact of EU conditionality in the area of regional policy in two candidate countries from different enlargement rounds. Second, it aims to investigate the outcomes of regional reforms while identifying the factors facilitating these reforms. The findings suggest that regional reform outcomes in Romania and Turkey show striking similarities, despite differences in the credibility of EU conditionality. Therefore, it argues that the constellations of domestic political actors and the existing domestic institutional structures matter more than EU conditionality in explaining the similarity in reform outcomes.

Notes

¹The article draws on in-depth interviews conducted by the authors. For Romania, interviews were conducted with three directors of Regional Development Agencies on 16, 18 and 22 April 2003; five representatives of local administrations at the level of county councils represented in the Regional Development Councils on 15 and 16 April 2003 and 24 June and 1 July 2005; eight representatives from several central ministries charged with regional development (including the Ministry of European Integration, the Directorate for Regional Politics and Development) on 9, 21, 25, 27, 29 and 30 June 2005; five representatives of civil society and initiators of bottom-up regionalist initiatives on 14, 17 and 18 April 2003; four experts on regional development policy on 15, 17 and 18 April 2003; one twinning EU expert for pre-accession on 16 April 2003; and two EU officials at the EU Delegation in Bucharest on 24 April 2003 and 26 June 2005. For Turkey, in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 bureaucrats at the State Planning Organisation (SPO) on 25, 26, 27 and 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2003; 10 bureaucrats on 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 May 2008; and four bureaucrats on 12 and 13 February 2009; two officials at the Secretariat General for EU Affairs (EUSG) in Ankara on 20 May 2008 and 11 February 2009; and two EU officials at the EU Delegation in Ankara on 12 March 2008. Interviews in Turkey were conducted on the basis of individual anonymity and confidentiality. The main questions addressed during the interviews included the following: what kind of changes can be observed with regard to institutions and ways of policy making in comparison to the previous period? Who are the actors that play a key role and at what stage? What are their incentives? What can explain the observed changes? Does learning play a role? What is the role of the EU? How can the role played by the EU be compared to other domestic factors?

²For a systematic review of Europeanisation research comparing top-down and bottom-up approaches, see Exadaktylos and Radaelli (2009).

³Veto players are defined as ‘individual or collective actors whose agreement is necessary for a change of the status quo’ (Tsebelis 2002, p. 249). Formal veto players have access and blockage control over the decision-making system, whereas informal veto players do not necessarily have formal access to power but constitute an important voice in shaping the societal shared understandings of what is acceptable for the territorial and regional reforms (Héritier 2001, p. 2). Norm agents, in turn, are actors who can advocate change and turn their beliefs into broader, shared understandings (Checkel 2001b). Two types of norm agents are identified in the literature: ‘epistemic communities’, which are networks of actors that legitimate norms and ideas by providing scientific knowledge, and ‘advocacy or principled issue networks’, which ‘are bound together by shared beliefs and values rather than by consensual knowledge’ (Börzel & Risse 2003, p. 67).

⁴For a review see Bennett and Elman (2006).

⁵Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 25, 26, 27 and 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2003. Also see Lagendijk et al. (2009, pp. 386–87).

⁶Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 26, 27 and 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2003. The existence of such a bottom-up demand, however, has been significant for raising awareness, especially at the national level, among bureaucrats in the SPO.

⁷Regional Development Administration for the Southeast Anatolia project (Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi, GAP), which was set up in 1989 as a decentralised arm of government involving a limited transfer of responsibility for coordinating public works investments by government institutions in this region, could perhaps be considered an exception. However, this institutional structure also lacked implementation capacity and power.

⁸The other two areas are agriculture and freedom of movement of persons.

⁹The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

¹⁰It is important to note that in the field of regional policy there were important differences between the Directorate General for Enlargement (responsible for pre-accession aid) and the Directorate General for Regional Policy (responsible for Structural and Cohesion Funds).

¹¹Figures on Romania are available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/romania/eu_romania_relations_en.htm, accessed 26 January 2009. Figures on the amount of EU financial assistance to Turkey are available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/countries/ipa_miff_081106_en.pdf, accessed 17 June 2010. Figures on the size of Turkey's GDP are available online at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx, accessed 17 June 2010. EU financial assistance as a share of Turkey's GDP was calculated by the authors by multiplying the amount of EU financial assistance to Turkey for the year 2008 by 100 and by dividing the result of this multiplication to the size of Turkey's GDP (in euros) in 2008.

¹²Interview conducted with EU official at the EU Delegation in Bucharest on 26 June 2005.

¹³Interviews conducted in Ankara in 2003 revealed that such a perception was widespread among bureaucrats and certain segments of the political elite and intelligentsia.

¹⁴Interviews conducted in Ankara with EU officials in 2008.

¹⁵Law 151, 1998 (Monitorul Oficial al României 1998).

¹⁶Law no. 286/2006 (Monitorul Oficial al României 2006).

¹⁷Interview conducted in Timişoara with representative of local administration at the level of county councils represented in the Regional Development Councils on 16 April 2003.

¹⁸Interviews with Ovidiu Pecican, 18 April 2003, Cluj-Napoca; Sabin Gherman, 18 April 2003, Cluj-Napoca; Mariana Cernicova, 14 April 2003, Timişoara; Miklos Bakk, 17 April 2003, Cluj-Napoca; Zsuzsa Hadhazy, 18 April 2003, Cluj-Napoca.

¹⁹Interviews conducted in Bucharest with representatives of RDAs, local administrations, central ministries and civil society on 15, 16, 18 and 22 April 2003, and on 9, 21, 25, 27, 29 and 30 June 2005.

²⁰Interview conducted in Timişoara with representative of civil society on 14 April 2003.

²¹Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials in 2003, 2008 and 2009.

²²NPAA documents are available online at: http://www.abgs.gov.tr/index.php?p=123&l=2, accessed 18 December 2009.

²³Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 21, 22 and 23 May 2008 and on 12 February 2009 and with EU officials on 12 March 2008.

²⁴Interview conducted in Ankara with an EU official on 12 March 2008. This view was also widespread among SPO officials interviewed in Ankara on 21, 22 and 23 May 2008 and on 12 February 2009.

²⁵Draft Framework Law on Public Administration is available online at: http://www.tbmm.gov.tr (in Turkish), accessed 22 December 2003. Although the Framework Law was vetoed by the president, some of the component legislation, such as the law on municipalities, was adopted.

²⁶Draft version of the law is available online at: http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d22/1/1-0950.pdf (in Turkish), accessed 17 September 2009.

²⁷Interview conducted in Ankara with an SPO official on 1 July 2003.

²⁸Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 26 and 27 May 2008 and on 13 February 2009.

²⁹Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 May 2008 and on 12 and 13 February 2009.

³⁰Interviews conducted in Ankara with SPO officials on 26 and 27 May 2008 and on 13 February 2009.