1 Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH) 5 th Black Sea Symposium The Black Sea region as an influential crossroad between East and West: A path towards extroversion” The quality of national institutional environment in NC and Black Sea countries: Burden or opportunity for regional development and innovation? Nikolaos Hlepas, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Political Science & Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens [email protected] Athens, 2 July 2012
1 Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH) 5 th Black Sea Symposium The Black Sea region as an influential crossroad between.
Mar 27, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
5th Black Sea SymposiumThe Black Sea region as an influential crossroad
between East and West:A path towards extroversion”
The quality of national institutional environment in NC and Black Sea countries: Burden or opportunity for regional development and
innovation?
Nikolaos Hlepas, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Political Science & Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Athens, 2 July 2012
2
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Background The Research (based on SEARCH program WP5.3) focuses on features of institutions at the national level (due to the lack of data at the regional level). The quality of institutions relies mainly on qualitative assessment and is not easy to measure (Kaufmann et al. 2008). World Economic Forum provides a solid base of common indicators and empirical data based on a sample of qualified professionals of the business sector reflecting their perceptions as actors in different institutional environment. The aforementioned indicators are particularly useful because they are common for all countries in a period from 2004-2011, covering key features of institutional performance.
Main aspects of institutional performance that will be examined are: a. Government Effectiveness , b. Regulatory Quality, c. Rule of Law d. Control of Corruption (Jurlin K./ Cuckovic, N.: 2009)
The aim of this research exercise is to highlight trends of institutional performance across time for selected countries which are grouped in clusters according to the pace of Europeanization: EU countries (e.g. Greece, Romania, Bulgaria), candidate countries (e.g. Turkey, Croatia) .Furthermore, trends will be examined according to different geographical cooperation countries (e.g. Black Sea countries, Southern Mediterranean NC, Eastern NC). Furthermore, convergencies or divergencies among countries of the same group will be examined in the period (2004-2011) using the coefficient of variation.
3
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Assumptions
•Different national institutional frameworks influence the Europeanization process ( e.g. Heritier, Guallini, Bach, Paraskevopoulos/Getimis/ Riss et. al.) .Divergent processes of Europeanization in different countries and macro-regions reflect “Goodness of Fit” or “Miss-Fit”, along line different responses of domestic legal and regulatory structures to the “European Community aquis”.
•The main thesis is that “path-dependency” influences the changes and transformations of the legal and administrative structures, which are promoted by the European programmes and the co-operation agreements in Macro-Regions (e.g. Black Sea Conventions and multi-lateral agreements). Thus, different trajectories of change emerge, with different paces and velocities, while traditional structures and practices co-exist with innovative modernization efforts. In any case, most of the evaluation reports highlight that even in cases of legal compliance, implementation of policies is lagging behind.
4
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Hypotheses
1. EU member states (e.g. Gr., Bu., Ro.), through the Europeanization process, show better institutional performance than candidate countries (e.g. Turkey, Croatia). 2. Candidate countries move more close to a trajectory of “goodness of Fit” than other NC Black sea countries. 3. Every country has its “significant trajectory” of institutional performance. Other factors, than Europeanization, play also an important role. 4. Countries with a political and administrative culture closer to the “weberian” bureaucracy of middle Europe (e.g. Croatia) do better than countries with individual political culture, clientelism and personalized networks (e.g. Bulgaria, Greece).5. In general, Europeanization Process and ENPI can promote improvement of national institutional environment and convergence of performance across countries. 6. Better performance of national institutional environments goes alongside with better scores in competitiveness of national economy.
5
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Main research questions •Which different trajectories concerning institutional performance emerge alongside single countries or clusters of countries (Europeanization, Regional Cooperation)•What kinds of differences by aspects of institutional performance between EU, EU Candidates, BSEC and ENP countries?
Data sources•The main source is the World Economic Forum (The Global Competitiveness Report, Issues 2004-2011)
Methodology •Analysis and evaluation of selected institutional indicators using aforementioned data source.
6
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Selected Indicators from WEF:
1. Government Effectiveness
1.1 Public trust of politicians
1.2 Favoritism in decisions of government officials
1.3 Wastefulness of government spending
1.4 Burden of government regulation
2. Regulatory Quality
2.1 Efficiency of legal framework
2.2. Transparency of government policy making
2.3. Strength of auditing and reporting standards
2.4. Efficacy of corporate boards
2.5. Protection of minority shareholders’ interests
7
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Selected Indicators from WEF:
3. Rule of Law
3.1 Property rights
3.2 Intellectual property protection
3.3 Judicial independence
3.4 Business costs of terrorism
3.5 Business costs of crime and violence
3.6 Organized crime
3.7 Reliability of police services
4. Control of Corruption
4.1 Diversion of public funds
4.2 Ethical behavior of firms
8
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Literature Background1.Jurlin, K./ Cuckovic, N. (2009). Comparative Analysis of the Quality of Institutions in the European Countries, Associzione Italiana per lo Studio dei Sistemi Economici Comparati, XIIth Scientific Conference, Growth and Development Patterns: The Role of Institutions in a Comparative Perspective, University of Perugia, Perugia. 2.Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M. (2008). Governance matters: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996-2007. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No 4654, available at SSRN: http//ssrn.com/abstract=1148386. 3.Heritier, Adr. (2005) , Europeanization Research East and West: A Comparative Assessment, in: Schimmelfennig, Fr. , Sedelmeier, Ulr. (ed.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 199-209.4.Gualini, E. (guest ed.) (2006), European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 7: ‘Governance Rescaling in Europe: Analytical and Empirical Explorations’ 5.Bache, I., Marshall, Ad. (2004), Europeanisation and Domestic Change: A Governance Approach to Institutional Adaptation in Britain. IES Queen's University of Belfast: Queen's Papers on Europeanisation.6.Paraskevopoulos, Chr./ Getimis, P./ Rees, N. (2006): Adapting to EU Multi-Level Governance Regional and Environmental Policies in Cohesion and CEE Countries, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Index of Quality of Institutional Environment
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
EU 15
EU 27
Candidate countries
ENC total
East ENC
South ENC
BSEC
Government Effectiveness - Candidate coutnries
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
EU 15
Regulatory Quality - Candidate countries
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
EU 15
Rule of Law - Candidate countries
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
EU 15
Control of Corruption - Candidate countries
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
EU 15
Index of Quality of Institutional Environment - Candidate countries
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia
Macedonia, FYR
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
EU 15
Government Effectiveness - BSEC
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Greece
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Turkey
Ukraine
EU 15
Regulatory Quality - BSEC
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Greece
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Turkey
Ukraine
EU 15
Rule of Law - BSEC
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Greece
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Turkey
Ukraine
EU 15
Control of Corruption - BSEC
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Greece
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Turkey
Ukraine
EU 15
Index of Quality of Institutional Framework - BSEC
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Georgia
Greece
Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Turkey
Ukraine
EU 15
Government Effectiveness - ENC East
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
EU 15
Regulatory Quality - ENC East
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
EU 15
Rule of Law - ENC East
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
EU 15
Control of Corruption - ENC East
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
EU 15
Index of Quality of Institutional Framework - ENC East
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
EU 15
Government Effectiveness - ENC South
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
EU 15
Regulatory Law - ENC South
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
EU 15
Rule of Law - ENC South
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
EU 15
Conrol of Corruption - ENC South
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
EU 15
Index of Quality of Institutional Framework - ENC South
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Algeria
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
EU 15
Government Effectiveness - ENC Total
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine
EU 15
Regulatory Quality - ENC Total
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine
EU 15
Rule of Law - ENC Total
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine
EU 15
Control of Corruption - ENC Total
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine
EU 15
Index of Quality of Institutional Framework -ENC Total
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco*
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine
EU 15
Coefficient of variation of the index of Quality of Institutional Environment
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
EU 15
EU 27
Candidate countries
ENC total
East ENC
South ENC
BSEC
Relation of GCI with QIEI - BSEC
3,00
3,20
3,40
3,60
3,80
4,00
4,20
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Global CompetitivenessIndex
Quality of InstitutionalEnvironment Index
Relation of GCI with QIEI - ENC East
2,50
2,70
2,90
3,10
3,30
3,50
3,70
3,90
4,10
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Global CompetitivenessIndex
Quality of InstitutionalEnvironment Index
Relation of GCI with QIEI - Candidate countries
3,00
3,20
3,40
3,60
3,80
4,00
4,20
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Global CompetitivenessIndex
Quality of InstitutionalEnvironment Index
Relation of GCI with QIEI - BSEC / ENC East / Candidate coutnries
2,80
3,00
3,20
3,40
3,60
3,80
4,00
4,20
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
BSEC GCI
BSEC QIEI
ENC East GCI
ENC East QIEI
Candidate GCI
Candidate QIEI
Relation of GCI with QIEI - Candidate countries
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Croatia GCI
Croatia QIEI
Macedonia, FYR GCI
Macedonia, FYR QIEI
Montenegro GCI
Montenegro QIEI
Serbia GCI
Serbia QIEI
Turkey GCI
Turkey QIEI
Relation of GCI with QIEI - East ENC
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Armenia GCI
Armenia QIEI
Azerbaijan GCI
Azerbaijan QIEI
Belarus GCI
Belarus QIEI
Georgia GCI
Georgia QIEI
Moldova GCI
Moldova QIEI
Ukraine GCI
Ukraine QIEI
Relation of GCI with QIEI - Selected BSEC countries
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2011
Bulgaria GCI
Bulgaria QIEI
Greece GCI
Greece QIEI
Romania GCI
Romania QIEI
Serbia GCI
Serbia QIEI
Turkey GCI
Turkey QIEI
Albania GCI
Albania QIEI
Moldova GCI
Moldova QIEI
Ukraine GCI
Ukraine QIEI
43
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Conclusions
1. In total, EU-15 shows better institutional performance than candidate countries, but this is not the case for BSCEC-EU members (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania), compared to some candidate countries (e.g. Montenegro). It is worth mentioning that institutional performance of Greece worsened a lot since 20052. Candidate countries do not necessarily move more close to a trajectory of “goodness of Fit” than other NC Black sea countries. 3. It is true, that every country has its “significant trajectory” of institutional performance. Other factors, than Europeanization, play also an important role (s. the case of Greece).
44
Sharing KnowledgE Assets: InteRegionally Cohesive NeigHborhoods (SEARCH)
Comparative View of the Quality of National Institutional Environments
Conclusions (II)
4. Countries with a political and administrative culture closer to the “weberian” bureaucracy of middle Europe (e.g. Croatia) do not necessarily do better than countries with individual political culture, clientelism and personalized networks (e.g. Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey).5. In general, it could not be indicated that Europeanization Process and ENPI can promote improvement of national institutional environment. Positive tendencies could be stated in Candidate, East ENC and (till 2008) BSEC countries. Developments in global economy and national contexts seem to be more influential 6. Convergence of performance across these selected groups of countries and within these groups could be stated. 7. Better performance of institutional environments does go alongside with better scores in competitiveness of economy.
Related Documents
