Europeanisation of the Balkans: The corruption test

David Madden

On 28 January, the SEESOX Hilary Term seminar series on Revisiting Convergence looked at its third theme: “Europeanisation of the Balkans or Balkanisation of the EU?” Alina Mungiu-Pippidi presented, Renee Hirschon chaired, and there was lively discussion of the main theme of corruption.

Trying to summarise academic discussion is not the easiest task for a rookie blogger, but there seemed broad agreement on the following (though I am open to being proved wrong by dissentient voices).

• corruption represented a considerable obstacle to economic development in South East Europe (SEE)
• the record in Central Europe and the Balkans was worse than in Western Europe and North America, but enormously better than in the countries of the former Soviet Union
• generally the Balkans performed less well than the Baltics in countering corruption
• the situation in SEE didn’t appear to be improving, though perceptions might obscure the real picture
• the main constraints on corruption were legal (assuming an autonomous and effective system) and normative
• “Europeanisation” was not proving a magic cure. It tended to be bureaucratic and non-transparent, undermining good governance. Misuse of EU funds in e.g. Italy and Greece had not lead to an avoidance of bad practice in Romania and Bulgaria. Transition could actually foster corruption, given the scope for misuse of privatisation and public funds; though e.g. Estonia in the Baltics was an example of good transition. The EU could impose normative constraints only pre-accession
• Companies disadvantaged by corruption tended not to go to the ECJ, appearing to sit back thinking their turn would come if they played their cards correctly
• Countries with a history of recent ethnic strife were particularly susceptible to corruption
• SEE countries could be sustainably reformed only from within, and through active civil societies

The tone of the seminar was therefore rather sombre, but like all good seminars ended with a good joke. A neophyte Minister of Development from country A is invited by a long-serving Minister of Development in country B. He is amazed by his colleague’s villa, swimming pool etc. etc. He asks the obvious question. His colleague takes him to the window. “You see that highway? 10%. You see that bridge? 10%. Easy.”  A few years later, there is a return visit. This time it is the more senior Minister’s turn to be amazed: by the villa, tennis court, solarium etc. etc. He asks: “How?” He is taken to the window, and shown the empty wastes outside. “You see that highway?” “No”  “Exactly. 100%”.