Europeanisation of the Balkans or Balkanisation of EU?

Renee Hirscon

On 28th January, a stimulating and provocative seminar by Alina Mungiu-Pippidi Europeanization of the Balkans- the Corruption Test addresses a key question : whether “the process of Europeanization is capable of changing the governance in the accession countries if it is different from the European norm?”. Three generations of countries were noted: previous – Italy, Greece, Spain; current – Romania, Bulgaria; next-- Croatia, Macedonia. The presentation contained rich information, statistically based and drawn from international sources, centring on a series of slides with various indices of corruption in the 27 countries of the EU. Not surprisingly, the clusters of least corrupt countries were those of northwestern Europe /Scandinavia while those of central, southern and SEE were spread in various distributions, highlighting the variability and specificity of each country’s response to accession.

The speaker noted some of the constraints which would be effective in bringing about good governance, such as an independent and accountable judiciary, and the capacity of the population to check that the state becomes autonomous from private interest, through media, civil society, enlightened voters (with Internet access). She also noted that certain policies favour corruption- allocating more funds to areas prone to discretionary spending, like big projects (for instance EU funds) instead of universal health coverage is associated with more corruption. The same happens with lack of fiscal transparency and red tape as they create a favourable environment for corruption that no prosecutors can afterwards cure.


From the enlargement experience over 20 yrs, it emerges paradoxically that EU accession stimulates good governance only before the entrance date (basically, because elites are afraid to miss the objective so behave with restraint), but not after. This is because it multiplies bureaucratic procedures, brings in new funds which can be spent discretionarily and gives little attention to transparency. This explains why no country has yet progress on governance after joining EU – most of them experienced a backslide. It seems that entrenched practices and ways of conducting business and politics tend to prevail after accession. The default position of local leaders is to continue in ways familiar to them and to the citizens, but now with access to greater resources through EU funding. Hence Mungiu- Pippidi‘s final sobering conclusion was that the transformation of SEE countries’ governance could only be sustainably achieved from within.

Some points noted and raised in the discussion period touched on:

• Culture: ‘the elephant in the room’ : AMP responded that she had purposely avoided it, institutions are what are needed. Reference to culture is essentializing and it is not salient in the reform process.
• What constitutes the ‘European norm’? To what degree is there a ‘colonial/imperial’ approach deriving from the hegemony of northwestern European cultural assumptions?
• The critical period for reform is before the accession and shortly after it. Before accession is the ‘carrot and stick’ phase when the incentives to be a ‘good boy’ are high on the list, but once in the EU the corruption effect continues, and may even be reinforced by the excess fun.
• The issue of speed and credibility: that the process works best when the time horizon to Accession is short and credible: 'the length of two governments'.
• ‘Rule of law’ may exist on the books, but it is not applied if the judiciary is complicit, then non-accountability prevail.
• Use of the internet to publicise and promote transparency, variable uptake in the newer member state.
• Role of the media? Free but corrupt press compromised by political and business collaborative interest.
• Altogether a thought -provoking and enlightening session, leaving us with much to consider and re-consider.

For this participant, the issue of ‘culture’ and especially ‘political culture’ is a central issue. In my view, attempts to interpret the performance of various countries, in governance, in politics, as well as in economics, must incorporate knowledge of their historical and cultural dimensions, in short the character of local society. Ignorance of the different historical experiences of various regions within the EU has been a stumbling block. ‘Cultural mismatches’ between partners within the EU have become increasingly evident in the crisis period. I am sure that cultural and historical factors should not be ignored in the process of trying to ensure successful enlargement and integration. For policy to be effectively applied, local practices, values and sensitivities need to be assessed and employed by administrators.