Conditionalities and the Performance of European Structural Funds: A Principal–Agent Analysis of Control Mechanisms in European Union Cohesion Policy

REFERENCES

• Aalbu H. and Bachtler J. (1998) Options for a Technically Feasible Performance Reserve Scheme. Working Paper Number 1998:4. Nordregio, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• ACT Consultants (2005) Contribution des programmes Objectif 1 et Objectif 2 au developpement des territoires prioritaires de la politique e la ville. Report to the European Commission (DG Regio). ACT Consultants, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Ancygier A. (2011) Dual P-A model ‘inverted’ principal–agent as a new tool to explain the implementation of the European renewable energy policy. Paper presented at the ‘Exchanging Ideas on Europe’, University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) Conference, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 5–7 September 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Anselmo I. and Raimondo L. (2003) The Objective 1 Italian performance reserve: a tool to enhance the effectiveness of programmes and the quality of evaluation. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Evaluation of the Structural Funds, Edinburgh, UK, 18-19 September 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Applica, Istituto di Ricerca Indisciplinarie Europa (ISMERI) and Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW) (2010) Financial Implementation of Structural Funds, Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000–2006 Co-Financed by ERDF (Objective 1 and 2) – Task 1: Coordination, Analysis and Synthesis. Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio). Applica, ISMERI and WIIW.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J. (1998) Reforming the Structural Funds: challenges for EU regional policy, European Planning Studies 6(6), 645–664. doi: 10.1080/09654319808720488
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J. and Gorzelak G. (2007) Reforming EU cohesion policy: a reappraisal of the performance of the Structural Funds, Policy Studies 28(4), 309–326. doi: 10.1080/01442870701640682
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J. and Mendez C. (2010) Review and Assessment of Simplification Measures in Cohesion Policy 2007–2013. European Parliament, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J. and Taylor S. (2003) The Added Value of the Structural Funds. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 13(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J., Downes R., Michie R., Rooney M.-L. and Taylor S. (2000) New Structural Fund Programming: Laying the Foundations. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 6(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler J., Mendez C. and Wishlade F. (2013) European Integration and Cohesion Policy: The Dynamics of Budget and Policy Reform. Ashgate, Farnham.
   Google Scholar
• Barca F. (2009) An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy, A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. Independent report to the European Commission (DG Regio), Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer M. W. (2006) Co-managing programme implementation: conceptualizing the European Commission's role in policy execution, Journal of European Public Policy 13(5), 717–735. doi: 10.1080/13501760600808592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baun M. and Marek D. (2009) EU Cohesion Policy After Enlargement. Palgrave, Basingstoke.
   Google Scholar
• Blom-Hansen J. (2005) Principals, agents, and the implementation of EU cohesion policy, Journal of European Public Policy 12(4), 624–648. doi: 10.1080/13501760500160136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovens M. (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework, European Law Journal 13(4), 447–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buiter W. H. (2007) Country ownership: a term whose time has gone, Development in Practice 17(4/5), 647–652. doi: 10.1080/09614520701469856
   Google Scholar
• Bundeskanzleramt (BKA) (2003) Light Governance' for Multi-Level Policies, Austrian Contribution to the Debate on Simplification of Structural Funds Management After 2006. Mimeo, June. Bundeskanzleramt, Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Casavola P. and Tagle L. (2003) Building capacity for evaluation: lessons from Italy. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on Evaluation of the Structural Funds, Budapest, Hungary, 26–27 June 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Industrial Studies (CSIL) (2010) Lessons from Shared Management in Cohesion, Rural Development and Fisheries Policies. Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio), Centre for Industrial Studies, Milan.
   Google Scholar
• Collier P., Guillaumont P., Guillaumont S. and Gunning J. W. (1997) Redesigning conditionality, World Development 25(9), 1399–1407. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00053-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union (1999) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, Official Journal of the European Communities L161(26 June).
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union (2006) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, Official Journal of the European Communities L210(31 July).
   Google Scholar
• Da Conceição-Heldt E. (2013) Do agents ‘run amok’? A comparison of agency slack in the EU and US trade policy in the Doha Round, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 15(1), 21–36. doi: 10.1080/13876988.2012.754152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damro C. (2007) EU delegation and agency in international trade negotiations: a cautionary comparison, Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4), 883–903. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00752.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies S., Mendez C. and Quiogue N. C. (2004) Cohesion Policy Funding for Innovation and the Knowledge Economy. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 15(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Delreux T. and Kerremans B. (2010) How agents weaken their principals' incentives to control: the case of EU negotiations an EU member states in multilateral negotiations, Journal of European Integration 32(4), 357–374. doi: 10.1080/07036331003797554
   Google Scholar
• DG Regio (1999) Working Paper 4: Implementation of the Performance Reserve. The Programming Period 2000–2006: Methodological Working Documents. European Commission, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• DG XVI (1998) Draft Council Regulation Chapter IV: Performance Reserve, Doc 7609/98, 13 May. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Drazen A. (2002) Conditionality and ownership in IMF lending: a political economy approach, IMF Staff Papers 49 [Special Issue], 36–67.
   Google Scholar
• Dreher A. (2002) The Development and Implementation of IMF and World Bank Conditionality. Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA) Discussion Paper Number 165. HWWA, Hamburg.
   Google Scholar
• Dür A. and Elsig M. (2011) Principals, agents, and the European Union's foreign economic policies, Journal of European Public Policy 18(3), 332–338. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2011.551066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ECOTEC (2003) Ex-Post Evaluation of Objective 1 1994–1999 Final Report to the European Commission (DG for Regional Policy). ECOTEC Research & Consulting, Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Egan M. (1998) Regulatory strategies, delegation and European market integration, Journal of European Public Policy 5(3), 485–506. doi: 10.1080/135017698343938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgie R. (2002) The politics of the European Central Bank: principal–agent theory and the democratic deficit, Journal of European Public Policy 9(2), 186–200. doi: 10.1080/13501760110120219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (1997) Agenda 2000 for a Stronger and Wider Union. Communication from the Commission of the European Communities, COM(97) 2000 final, 15 July. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2000) Performance Reserve: Analysis of the Situation in the Member States. Objectives 1 and 2. Synthesis Report. December. DG Regio Evaluation Unit, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2003a) 14th Annual Report on the Implementation of the Structural Funds. Commission of the European Communities, COM(2003) 0646 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2003b) Communication from the Commission on the Simplification, Clarification, Coordination and Flexible Management of Structural Policies 2000–06. C(2003) 1255, 25 April. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2004) A Report on the Performance Reserve and Mid-Term Evaluation. Report by DG Regio to the Committee on the Development and Conversion of the Regions, 27 July. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2007a) Member States and Regions Delivering the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs Through EU Cohesion Policy, 2007–2013. Communication from the Commission, COM(2007) 798, 11 December. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2007b) Regions Delivering Innovation Through Cohesion Policy. Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2007) 1547, 14 November. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2010) Analysis of the Budgetary Implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in 2009. Directorate-General for the Budget, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2011a) Impact Assessment of Funds Covered by the Common Strategic Framework. Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC(2011) 1141 final, 6 October. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2011b) Results of the Public Consultation on the Conclusions of the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC(2011) 590 final, 13 May. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013) Cohesion Policy: Strategic Report 2013 on Programme Implementation 2007–2013. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2013) 210 final, 18 April. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors (ECA) (1998) Opinion No. 10/98 of the European Court of Auditors on certain proposals for regulations within the Agenda 2000 framework, Official Journal of the European Communities C401, Vol. 41(22 December).
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2003) Court of Auditors – annual report concerning the financial year 2002, Official Journal of the European Union C286, Vol. 46(28 November).
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2004) Court of Auditors – annual report concerning the financial year 2003, Official Journal of the European Union C293, Vol. 47(28 November).
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2006) Court of Auditors – annual report concerning the financial year 2005, Official Journal of the European Union C263, Vol. 49(31 October).
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2010) Court of Auditors – annual report concerning the financial year 2009, Official Journal of the European Union C303, Vol. 53(9 November).
   Google Scholar
• Golden M. M. (2000) What Motivates Bureaucrats?. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman S. and Hart O. (1983) An analysis of the principal–agent problem, Econometrica 51(1), 7–45. doi: 10.2307/1912246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall R. and Rosenstock N. (1998) Agenda 2000 – the reform of EU cohesion policies, European Planning Studies 6(6), 635–644. doi: 10.1080/09654319808720487
   Google Scholar
• Kapur D. and Webb R. (2000) Governance-Related Conditionalities of the International Financial Institutions. G-24 Discussion Paper Series 6. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), New York and Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Kassim H. and Menon A. (2003) The principal–agent approach and the study of the European Union: promise unfulfilled?, Journal of European Public Policy 10(1), 121–139. doi: 10.1080/1350176032000046976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiewiet D. R. and McCubbins M. D. (1991) The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Kilby C. (2009) The political economy of conditionality: an empirical analysis of World Bank loan disbursements, Journal of Development Economics 89(1), 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.06.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killick T. (1997) Principals, agents and the failings of conditionality, Journal of International Development 9(4), 483–495. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199706)9:4<483::AID-JID458>3.0.CO;2-S
   Google Scholar
• Koeberle S. G. (2003) Should Policy-Based Lending Still Involve Conditionality? The World Bank Research Observer Number 18:2. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Koeberle S. G., Bedoya H., Silarszky P. and Verheyen G. (Eds) (2005) Conditionality Revisited: Concepts, Experiences and Lessons. The World Bank. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Leandro J. E., Schafer H. and Frontini G. (1999) Towards a more effective conditionality: an operational framework, World Development 27(2), 285–299. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00127-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi R. and Nanetti R. (2011) The cohesion-isation of the Lisbon Strategy through the implementation of Europe 2020. Paper presented at the Regional Studies Association European Conference 2012, ‘Network Regions and Cities in Times of Fragmentation: Developing Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Places’, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 13–16 May 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Marchesi S. and Sabani L. (2007) IMF concern for reputation and conditional lending failure: theory and empirics, Journal of Development Economics 84(2), 640–666. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendez C. (2011) The Lisbonisation of EU cohesion policy: a successful case of experimentalist governance?, European Planning Studies 19(3), 519–537. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendez C., Kah S. and Bachtler J. (2010) Taking Stock of Programme Progress: Implementation of the Lisbon Agenda and Lessons for Europe 2020. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 27(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Milner H. (2004) Why Multilateralism? Foreign Aid and Domestic Principal–Agent Problems. Columbia University, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Moe T. M. (1984) The new economics of organization, American Journal of Political Science 28(4), 739–777. doi: 10.2307/2110997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe T. M. (1987) An assessment of the positive theory of ‘Congressional dominance’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 12(4), 475–520. doi: 10.2307/439745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muuka G. N. (1998) In defense of World Bank and IMF conditionality in structural adjustment programs, Journal of Business in Developing Nations 2(2) (available at: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/jbdn/jbdnvol2.htm).
   Google Scholar
• Nordregio (2009) The Potential for EU Structural Funds to Contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg Objectives. Report to the European Commission (DG Regio), Nordregio, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Governing Regional Development Policy: The Use of Performance Indicators. OECD, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Pollack M. A. (2007) Principal–Agent Analysis and International Delegation: Red Herrings, Theoretical Clarifications, and Empirical Disputes. College of Europe Working Papers, February. College of Europe, Bruges.
   Google Scholar
• Polverari L., Davies S. and Michie R. (2004) Programmes at the Turning Point: Challenges, Activities and Developments for Partner Regions. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 14(1). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Polverari L., Mendez C., Gross F. and Bachtler J. (2007) Making Sense of European Cohesion Policy: 2007–13. On-Going Evaluation and Monitoring Arrangements. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 21(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Polverari L., McMaster I., Gross F., Bachtler J., Ferry M. and Yuill D. (2006) Strategic Planning for Structural Funds in 2007–13. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 18(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Raines P. and Taylor S. (2002) Mid-Term Evaluation of the 2000–06 Structural Fund Programmes. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 11(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Rich R. (2004) Applying conditionality to development assistance, Agenda 11(4), 321–334.
   Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig F. and Sedelmeier U. (2004) Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Journal of European Public Policy 11(4), 661–679. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000248089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuknecht L. (2004) EU Fiscal Rules: Issues and Lessons from Political Economy. Working Paper Number 421. European Central Bank, Frankfurt.
   Google Scholar
• Sedelmeier U. (2008) After conditionality: post-accession compliance with EU law in East Central Europe, Journal of European Public Policy 15(6), 806–825. doi: 10.1080/13501760802196549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepsle K. A. and Bonchek M. S. (1997) Analysing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. Norton, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Sippel M. and Neuhoff K. (2009) A history of conditionality: lessons for international cooperation on climate policy, Climate Policy 9(5), 481–494. doi: 10.3763/cpol.2009.0634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson J. (2003) Why conditional aid does not work and what can be done about it?, Journal of Development Economics 70(2), 381–402. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00102-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallberg J. (2003) The agenda-shaping powers of the EU council presidency, Journal of European Public Policy 10(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1080/1350176032000046903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor S. (2006) Trouble for Commission's ‘Lisbonisation’ project, European Voice, 1 June.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor S., Bachtler J., Josserand F. and Polverari L. (2004) Achieving the Aspirations of the 2000–06 Programming Period. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 14(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor S. Bachtler J. and Polverari L. (2001) Information into Intelligence: Monitoring for Effective Structural Funds Programming. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 8(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor S. and Raines P. (2003) Getting the Message – Structural Funds Publicity and Communication. IQ-Net Thematic Paper Number 12(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Technopolis (2006) Strategic Evaluation on Innovation and the Knowledge Based Economy for the Programming Period 2007–2013. Synthesis Report to DG Regio, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Thatcher M. and Stone Sweet A. (Eds) (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions in Europe West European Politics 25(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1080/713601583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tödtling-Schönhofer H. and Wimmer H. (2008) Governance and Partnership in Regional Policy. European Parliament, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Van Thiel S. and Leeuw F. L. (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector, Public Performance and Management Review 25(3), 267–281. doi: 10.2307/3381236
   Google Scholar
• Weingast B. R. and Moran M. J. (1983) Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission, Journal of Political Economy 91(5), 765–800. doi: 10.1086/261181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood A. and Lockwood M. (1999) The ‘Perestroika of Aid’? New Perspectives on Conditionality. Report of the Bretton Woods Project. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank (2005) Review of World Bank Conditionality: 2005 Conditionality Survey. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Worshan J. (2003) Multiple principals, multiple signals: a signaling approach to principal–agent relations, Policy Studies Journal 33(3), 363–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00120.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar