Europe on a local level Exploring motives behind EU-funded projects, through path dependency and Europeanisation JOSEFIN WENDEL May 2015 Master thesis, 30 ECTS Master of Arts in European Studies Faculties of Humanities and Theology Supervisor: Eleonora Narvselius
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
Europe on a local levelExploring motives behind EU-funded projects,
through path dependency and Europeanisation
JOSEFIN WENDEL
May 2015
Master thesis, 30 ECTS
Master of Arts in European Studies
Faculties of Humanities and Theology
Supervisor: Eleonora Narvselius
Abstract
Focusing on what motivates local authorities to apply for project funding from the
European Union (EU) through its funds and funding programmes, this research paper
explores the motivation with the framework of path dependency and the context of
Europeanisation. Using a sample of Swedish local authorities, interviews with municipal
staff members were carried out. By analysing the rhetoric and argumentation used by civil
servants, who are close to the institutional logic, motives and reasonings were unveiled.
This paper argues that local authorities are not only motivated by money or project-specific
objectives, but by considerably deeper and more institutionally engrained principles and
developments. The findings show that EU project funding applications of the sampled local
authorities are path dependent, though also influenced by Europeanisation and larger
developments such as projectification of public authorities.
Understanding what motivates local authorities, which play a central role in delivering
services to EU residents in their everyday lives, to apply for EU project funding is
important also in understanding what discourages local authorities from doing so. The path
dependence in this area has serious implications for local authorities as well as for the EU,
particularly as project funding is a vital tool kit for the EU in realising policy and/or
tackling problems.
Key words: Path Dependency, Europeanisation, European Union, Projectification, Local
Authorities, Sweden, Skåne, Structural Funds, EU Project, EU Funding Programmes,
Rhetorical Analysis
Table of contents1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research questions and structure.................................................................................32. Background and context.....................................................................................................4
2.1 EU funds and funding programmes.............................................................................42.1.1 History of EU grants............................................................................................ 42.1.2 Overview of funds and funding programmes (2014-2020) ................................52.1.3 Actors................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Sweden.......................................................................................................................122.2.1 Sweden in the EU...............................................................................................122.2.2 Local authorities in Sweden...............................................................................132.2.3 Comparability.................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Literature review........................................................................................................163. Theoretical framework..................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Theory and concepts.................................................................................................. 193.1.1 Path dependency................................................................................................ 203.1.2 Europeanisation..................................................................................................233.1.3 Projectification...................................................................................................25
4. Methods and sources........................................................................................................ 274.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................27
4.1.1 Interviews...........................................................................................................284.1.2 Rhetorical analysis............................................................................................. 29
4.2 Collection of data.......................................................................................................294.2.1 Questionnaire..................................................................................................... 294.2.2 Interviews...........................................................................................................314.2.3 Case studies (local authorities).......................................................................... 324.2.4 Interviewees (civil servants).............................................................................. 334.2.5 Observation........................................................................................................ 34
5. Findings............................................................................................................................ 355.1 Rhetorical analysis.....................................................................................................35
5.1.1 Overview of discourses......................................................................................355.1.2 Argumentation of motivation............................................................................. 37
5.2 Observations.............................................................................................................. 456. Analysis and discussion....................................................................................................47
6.1 Path dependency........................................................................................................ 476.1.1 Multiple equilibria............................................................................................. 476.1.2 Key events..........................................................................................................486.1.3 Timing................................................................................................................ 496.1.4 Positive feedback............................................................................................... 516.1.5 Cost of exit.........................................................................................................52
6.2 Europeanisation......................................................................................................... 536.4 Research evaluation................................................................................................... 55
7. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 588. Bibliography.....................................................................................................................61Appendix I – List of abbreviations.......................................................................................66Appendix II – Interview questionnaire (Swedish original)................................................. 67Appendix III – Interview questionnaire (English translation)..............................................69Appendix IV – List of interviews.........................................................................................71Appendix V – Note on interview transcripts........................................................................72
1. Introduction
Every day millions of people in the European Union (EU) utilise EU-funded projects, past
and present, in a myriad of ways. Be it travelling on a train link, undertaking professional
development training, sending their children on school exchanges, cycling on a bike lane,
or attending a film festival – so-called EU-funded projects1 permeate the lives of EU
residents (and beyond). No wonder then, as the European Commission puts it, “95% of the
EU budget goes to fund concrete activities on the ground.”2
On a supranational level, a main incentive for the EU to develop and maintain the
system(s) of funds and funding programmes is arguably the possibility of using it as a form
of soft power to provide financial support (and incentive) for smaller actors – be it public
authorities, non-governmental organisations, educational institutions or private businesses
– to aid in the implementation of EU strategies, and particularly in realising the objectives
of said strategies.
I would argue that the study of the EU and particularly EU policies cannot be complete
without the grassroots perspective of the institutions applying for the EU funding. This
research paper aims to provide this perspective by studying what motivates local
authorities to apply for EU project funding, and take part in EU-funded projects. The
projects funded are usually initiated and organised by a consortium of organisations which
partner together for the project, although some projects are run only by one organisation.
An EU-funded project is thus important on two levels from a policy perspective, and is
arguably part of two separate so-called policy cycles.3 Firstly, the local level where an issue
has become part of the organisation's agenda, and is being addressed with a policy being
implemented through said EU project. Secondly, the supranational EU level on which the
overarching fund or grant makes up the implementation part of the policy cycle on a
1 Many funds and funding programmes require match-funding from other financial sources, however as part of the funding is received from the EU, I nonetheless refer to the projects as EU-funded projects.
2 “Structure of the EU budget,” European Commission, last modified 5 March 2015, accessed 23 March 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/structure/struct_en.cfm.
3 Alasdair R. Young, “The European Policy Process in Comparative Perspective” in Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace et al (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 46.
1
specific topic – such as the Cohesion Policy. These two levels intersect in an EU-funded
project, where the implementation of both policies overlap. Although this is a simplified
sketch of the procedures and developments taking place, it helps to explain the importance
and the limitations of this study. EU-funded projects on a local level are vital, as the actual
projects being funded by EU funds and grants are a vital tool in realising or implementing
policy developed by the EU.4 This study focuses solely on the local level and explores the
local authority motivation for these two circles to intersect.
I will not focus on how the local authorities might attempt to influence EU policy or for
example lobby the EU through networks or regional and local Brussels representation
offices (or indeed the Committee of the Regions, Members of the European Parliament, the
Swedish government, and so on) to influence the policies/strategies which are the basis of
the programmes. This paper also does not deal with individual EU institutions, such as the
European Commission, or policy developments there, but rather uses the term EU in a
broader sense, to denote the overall source of funding.5
This paper focuses on Sweden, as Sweden presents a particularly well-suited example
member state for this study. It is a relatively new member state, having joined the EU in
1995, while still providing enough historical events and projects to draw upon. This is
particularly important as I will explore the motivation using the theoretical framework of
path dependency, which requires sufficient past experiences. Sweden is also a suitable
starting point for this research, as one could – somewhat simplified – consider it a
moderate member state.6
Although a wide variety of organisations apply for EU project funding, I consider local
authorities to be an especially important type of organisation to study, partly due to the
principle of subsidiarity and notion of local self-governance. They are also vital in
implementing EU policy, as I will later outline. Local authorities also act as a historical
constant nowadays, in that they have existed for many years and will exist for the
4 The EU policy development is too vast a topic to be included in this research paper. See for example Helen Wallace et al, Policy-Making in the European Union, for more detail.
5 Although nearly all of the EU budget has been paid in by the member states, the EU budget is centrally held and planned (see Chapter 2 for more information on multi-annual financial frameworks), becoming the joint responsibility of the 28 member states. I thus refer to the EU as the source of funding.
6 See 2.2 for more information on this and the specificity of Sweden.
2
foreseeable future, making them suitable to consider in the light of path dependency. I
would argue that studying local authorities' EU project funding applications can
particularly aid the understanding of the institutional conditionality of the implementation
of EU policies. EU-funded projects require development within the applying institutions.
Ultimately, if organisations such as local authorities do not apply for the EU project
funding available, the implementation of the EU in many policy areas (particularly non-
binding ones) will not happen.
1.1 Research questions and structure
The aim of this paper is to explore the motivation of local authorities in applying for EU
project funding, and whether path dependency can explain why local authorities do or do
not apply. Two research questions emerge:
• What motivates local authorities to apply for EU project funding?
• How balanced are the motivations driven by Europeanisation and path
dependence?
To answer these questions I will use sample local authorities in the Skåne7 region of
Sweden, and interview civil servants who have worked (and continue to work) with EU
project funding applications. This insight into the institutional logic will allow me to apply
five key concepts from path dependency onto the motivations, to explore whether the
municipal processes are path dependent. The motives and municipal developments will
also be placed into the wider context of Europeanisation.
This research paper begins by outlining the background and context of the EU funds and
funding programmes and Swedish local authorities (Chapter 2). A literature review will
place this study in the context of a wider academic debate. Thereafter the main theoretical
framework of path dependency will be introduced, followed by an explanation of the
process of Europeanisation, and projectification (Chapter 3). The methods and sources
used will then be outlined (Chapter 4), before the findings of the study are presented
(Chapter 5), followed by a discussion of the results (Chapter 6), and, finally, my
conclusions (Chapter 7).
7 Skåne is sometimes referred to as Scania in English, but I will use the official Swedish name for the region.
3
2. Background and context
2.1 EU funds and funding programmes
2.1.1 History of EU grants
Already the Treaty of Rome, in 1957, included the need to even out economic and social
differences between regions, laying the first foundations of what is today the EU's
Regional Policy. The establishment of the European Economic Community also saw the
establishment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was a way of addressing
worries about food shortages and ensuring sustainable food production.8 The enlargements,
starting with the United Kingdom (UK), Denmark and Ireland in 1973, created new
challenges for the European Communities and the need to develop and adapt its economic
tools. “In particular it was judged necessary to develop policies from which the UK, a
major net contributor to that budget, might be able to benefit through the creation of the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),”9 as for example the CAP would not
benefit the UK nearly as much as other member states such as France. While the
enlargements widened the membership and spread of the European Communities, the
funds arguably deepened the European cooperation through their redistribution.
These structural funds,10 of which the ERDF is part, are so heavily linked to EU policy that
they can be considered part of the actual policy itself. “The original rationale for the
structural funds was to remove regional disparities, with EU regions defined and targeted
as recipients for different types of assistance. This regional 'logic' gradually became known
as 'cohesion policy'.”11 In the case of the structural funds, these are today linked to the EU's
Regional and Cohesion Policy framework. These funds, today known collectively as the
Structural and Investment Funds, grew to take up around one-third of the EU budget.12 The
financial allocation in the current programming period (2014-2020) for the Structural and
8 Christilla Roederer-Rynning, “The Common Agricultural Policy: The Fortress Challenged,” in Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace et al, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 182.
9 Allen, “The Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Extending the Bargain to Meet New Challenges,” 230.10 See Chapter 2 for outline of the current structural funds.11 Allen, “The Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Extending the Bargain to Meet New Challenges,” 230.12 Ibid.
4
Investment Funds is 351.8 billion euros.13
Over the years, the targeting of various EU regions was broadened, similarly to the
development of the ERDF partly in response to the accession of the UK. “Budgetary flows
to the member states are highly visible so that 'winners' and 'losers' can be calculated with
relative ease.”14 Sweden belongs to the group of net contributors15 as EU terminology
brands these 'losers'. However, due to the broadness of the current-day structural funds
(which today even include financing of certain cultural projects) Sweden is still able to
benefit from the structural funds, despite all Swedish regions being officially classified as
more developed regions by the European Commission.16
2.1.2 Overview of funds and funding programmes (2014-2020)
In this section, I provide an overview of the current EU funds and funding programmes, to
show the wide variety of funding sources available, and the huge opportunities the EU
have to impact local authorities (and other organisations) through these. As outlined below,
the thematic scope of the funds is vast and can overlap with a significant portion of the
local authority areas of responsibility.17
When I refer to the EU funds and funding programmes, I refer to the funding opportunities
outlined in Table 1. On a local level, I make no initial distinction between funds and
funding programme, in terms of what motivates a municipality to apply for these types of
EU funding. Within Skåne, local authorities the central institutional structure for applying
for EU project funding is – according to my observations – similar, with an arguably
similar motivation. For the purposes of this paper I did not wish to narrow the scope of my
research too soon, before I had even gathered any interview data, as I would run the risk of
missing out on potential nuances and aspects of the incentives municipalities have in
applying for EU project funding.
13 “Available budget 2014-2020,” European Commission, accessed 23 March 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/available-budget.
14 Brigid Laffan and Johannes Lindner, “The Budget: Who Gets What, When and How?,” in Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace et al, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 208.
15 "Sveriges EU-avgift,” accessed 14 April 2015, http://www.eu-upplysningen.se/Sverige-i-EU/Sveriges-EU-avgift.
16 "Commission Implementing Decision,” Official Journal of the European Union, accessed 23 March 2015, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014D0099&from=EN.
17 Cf. section 2.2.2.
5
However, it is important to note that these funding opportunities can be classified in many
different ways, and that the different types of funding sources influence the actors involved
in the application process. I have chosen five parameters against which funds and funding
programmes could be classified, to illustrate key aspects of how EU project funding
functions, and how various aspects of a programme incentivise (or indeed disincentivise)
municipalities from applying for funding.
My five categories of classification of EU funds and funding programmes are based on:18
● funding source
● management of the fund or funding programme
● partnership requirement
● focus of the programme (geographical or thematic)
● match-funding requirement
Firstly, the arguably simplest distinction is between the funds and the funding programmes.
The Structural and Investment Funds are made up of five separate funds,19 out of which
Sweden is eligible for all except the Cohesion Fund (CF) which targets member states
where the “Gross National Income (GNI) per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the EU
average.”20 This does not mean that Swedish organisations or public authorities can apply
for all portions of the funds, as these are subject to separate criteria. I would argue that this
is an ineffective way of differentiating the funding sources, partly because some funds
operate in conjunction with funding programmes. Crucially, on a fundamental level, both
types provide financial support for projects against a set of criteria and objectives outlined
in EU policy.
Secondly, the EU itself divides the funding it provides into funds with a shared
management, and funds managed directly by the EU.21 The Structural and Investment
18 These distinctions relate to the ongoing programming period. Previous periods had different structures.19 See Table 1.20 "Cohesion Fund,” European Union, accessed 23 March 2015,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund.21 “EU funding,” European Union, accessed 23 March 2015, http://europa.eu/about-eu/funding-
grants/index_en.htm.
6
Funds have shared management, with the nation states, and thus involves more national
and/or regional actors. “Over 76% of the EU budget is managed in partnership with
national and regional authorities through a system of 'shared management'”22 The funds
directly managed by the EU are divided into grants and public contracts. Public contracts
are the results of calls for tender from an EU institution wishing to for example purchase
equipment or hire in training. The scope of this paper does not include public contracts as
these are part of the day-to-day administrative running of the EU institutions offices, and
cannot include project partners such as local authorities.
Thirdly, the funds and funding programmes could be divided by the type of partnership
required (if any at all). The project requirements sometimes include national partners,
sometimes international partners, and sometimes no partners. The demand for transnational
cooperation in EU-funded projects is particularly interesting in the context of the process
of Europeanisation.
Fourthly, the focus of the programme is how many Skåne local authorities seemingly
classify the EU funding opportunities for locally-led projects. Is it thematically based (like
Erasmus+ focusing on education and youth) or geographically set out (such as the ESF and
the ERDF)?
Fifthly, the crucial budget requirement for a municipality can be the need for match-
funding. The funding terms of a project stipulate what maximum percentage of the project
budget can come from EU sources. This varies significantly depending on the type of fund
and project, but is highly relevant to most organisations as the rest of the budget needs to
be match-funded (either from public or private sector sources). Project types which could
be fully-funded by the EU create clear financial incentives to apply. Here the EU's
principle of additionality is also of importance. Additionality is the concept that EU
funding should complement national public expenditure, not replace it.
22 Ibid.
7
Title Funding source
Management Focus
Horizon 2020 Funding programmes
EU-managed with varying degrees of national influence and managing authorities
Thematic
Erasmus+
Creative Europe
Europe for Citizens
LIFE
Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME)
Health
EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme
Justice Programme
European Social Fund (ESF) Structural and Investment Funds
Shared management with member states, with national and regional responsibilities
Geographical(although funding opportunities are still based on fields and objectives in these)
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund (EMFF)
Cohesion Fund (CF) Structural and Investment Funds
N.B. Sweden is not eligible for this fund.
Table 1. Overview of the major EU funds and funding programmes available to a Swedish
municipality
The funds and funding programmes are structured into programming periods, or financial
perspectives, which relate to the EU budget's multi-annual financial frameworks. They
currently run for seven years, with the latest completed period ending in 2013. In the past,
the time frames of the financial perspectives have varied, but has been seven years each
since 1993. The ongoing programming period began in 2014 and will run until 2020,
coinciding with the target end of the EU's current ten-year growth strategy, Europe 2020.
8
Between programming periods the funds and programmes are restructured to varying
degrees, through a lengthy and complex procedure – bouncing between the different layers
of governance (such as supranational, national, regional and local) before the scope, aims
and budget are finally agreed. The process varies depending on the fund or programme and
involves a multitude of actors, making the processes far too great to discuss herein.
2.1.3 Actors
To contextualise my research questions further, an outline of the actors influencing a
municipality's decision to apply for EU project funding, and their incentives is needed. The
networks of actors are very complex and vary depending on the specific type of funding
source, and so I will use an example funding programme, Creative Europe, to briefly
illustrate the major actors involved in the implementation of the funding programme. This
shows the complexity of each funding programme, and hence the institutional knowledge
required to apply, while demonstrating the heavily shared implementation responsibility.
Regarding the Creative Europe funding programme, the main supranational actors (by
which I mean actors working on a pan-European level lacking clear affiliation to a member
state) and the main national actors (that is, actors with an explicit affiliation to a member
state) are linked to the European Commission. On a political level the European
Commission includes 28 commissioners, one from each member state, but its day-to-day
functions are carried out by a myriad of civil servants divided between 33 directorate-
generals (DGs). Within the Commission the management responsibility for the Creative
Europe funding programme lies within the Education, Audiovisual and Cultural Executive
Agency (EACEA).
EACEA is a so-called executive agency, a type of body separate from the EU institutions
but still supervised by the Commission through DGs. In the case of EACEA, four
“parent”23 DGs are responsible for its supervision: DG Education and Culture, DG
Communications Networks, Content and Technology, DG Migration and Home Affairs,
and DG Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection. The mission of EACEA follows Creative
Europe from setting out the conditions and guidelines of funding opportunities therein,
23 “About EACEA,” Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, accessed 14 April 2015, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/about-eacea_en.
9
through to evaluation and selection of applications, and the monitoring of funded projects
and their end reports.24 To successfully carry out its mission, it is in the interest of EACEA
to select and fund project applications which will be successful in implementing the
objectives of the programme (and thus, the EU policies linked to this). In terms of local
authorities in Skåne applying for project funding, EACEA is far removed from the
decision-making process in the municipality, and only functions as a backstage actor in its
role of managing the funding programme. I would thus argue that the EU, even through its
Commission executive agencies and DGs, needs local organisations such as municipalities
to be able to function and implement its policies properly.
Despite being under central EU-management (rather than shared management like the
Structural and Investment Funds), Creative Europe still has national contact points,
Creative Europe Desks. The Swedish Creative Europe Desk is managed by the public
authority, Swedish Arts Council,25 and the foundation, Swedish Film Institute26.27 These
two institutions operate on a national Swedish level and with the main objective “to
increase the knowledge and awareness among Swedish cultural operators on the prospects
for culture and audiovisual media in the European Union programs, mainly about the
Creative Europe program.”28 The ultimate incentive for the two Swedish institutions here
is, essentially, to maximise the Swedish benefit from the Creative Europe programme,
ultimately linking to their own institutional objectives of supporting (financially and
otherwise) the cultural and film sector, respectively, in Sweden. Both institutions can
provide assistance to a municipality with the project application process, if asked to do so.
Bearing in mind that Sweden has 290 municipalities (on top of the thousands of other types
of organisations eligible for Creative Europe funding), these two actors do not engage with,
or seek out, each individual municipality, but rather function in the background, stepping
forward upon request.
Skåne Association of Local Authorities (KFSK) is a regionally-based public organisation,
24 Ibid.25 In Swedish: Kulturrådet.26 In Swedish: Svenska Filminstitutet.27 "International activities,” Swedish Arts Council, accessed 23 March 2015,
http://www.kulturradet.se/en/In-English/International-activities.28 “Creative Europe Desk Sweden – A Presentation,” Swedish Arts Council, accessed 23 March 2015,
http://www.kulturradet.se/sv/EU_Kulturprogram/English.
10
owned by its 33 members (the 33 municipalities in Skåne). It has a designated EU section
and its own Brussels representation office, which has the explicit target of helping to
increase the share of EU financing received by Skåne municipalities.29 This institution is a
key actor in encouraging and supporting municipalities in applying for EU project funding.
One of the tools used is an EU project analysis (EPA), which is an analysis to explore areas
where there is, or could be, an overlap between the strategies and aims of a specific
municipality and EU funds and funding programmes.
Fellow municipalities also influence and serve as inspiration to motivate municipalities to
apply for project funding. A programme as vast as Creative Europe, with its budget 1.46
billion euro and broad scope and objectives,30 will arguably seem more relevant to a
municipality if another similar organisation has used the programme, providing concrete
examples which can more easily be related too.
Locally, within a Swedish municipality, there is a clear organisational divide between the
political structure and the civil service, although the actual division of power is subject to
much debate. The supreme decision-making body in a municipality is its municipal
assembly,31 consisting of publicly elected officials. The municipal assembly elects a
municipal executive committee.32 EU project funding applications are rarely dealt with by
the municipal council. The specific approval process of a project application depends on
the type of project and the internal structure of the municipality, but may extend from
senior management (that is, civil service) to an executive sub-committee of the municipal
executive committee.33 I would argue that the political bodies within a municipality are,
rather interestingly, mostly background actors in a municipality's decision to apply for EU
project funding. Indeed, the EU project funding may be linked to objectives set out by the
municipal council, yet this is only the backdrop against which the application is made. The
main actor(s) within the municipality, in this respect, are seemingly the civil servants.
29 “Brysselkontoret,” Skåne Association of Local Authorities, last modified 14 January 2015, accessed 23 March 2015, http://kfsk.se/ledningochutveckling/eu-och-brysselkontoret/brysselkontoret.
30 “Creative Europe,” European Commission, accessed 23 March 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/opportunities/index_en.htm.
31 In Swedish: Kommunfullmäktige.32 In Swedish: Kommunstyrelse.33 In Swedish: Kommunstyrelsens arbetsutskott.
11
2.2 Sweden
2.2.1 Sweden in the EU
Sweden is a relatively young EU member state, having joined only 20 years ago at the
same time as Finland and Austria. The EU accession in 1995 followed a nationwide
referendum on the issue in the autumn of 1994, in which 52.3 per cent of voters voted for
Sweden to join the EU, while 46.8 per cent voted against.34 The referendum results show
the then rather divided feelings towards the EU among the Swedish population.
The fluctuating attitudes of Swedes towards the Swedish EU membership is illustrated in
Figure 1 below. While it only provides a limited snapshot of the overall public opinion, it is
still worth keeping this disparity in mind.
Figure 1. EU preferences in Sweden 1996-2014: “Are you principally for or against
Sweden's membership in the EU or are you undecided?” Source: Statistics Sweden.35
34 "Nationella folkomröstningar,” Valmyndigheten, accessed 14 April 2015, http://www.val.se/det_svenska_valsystemet/folkomrostningar/nationella/index.html.
35 “EU preferences in Sweden 1996-2014,” Statistics Sweden, last modified 10 December 2014, accessed 21 April 2015, http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Statistics-by-subject-area/Democracy/Political-party-preferences/Party-Preference-Survey-PSU/Aktuell-Pong/12443/EU-Euro-Preferences/27403.
12
Despite the fluctuating public opinion on EU membership in Sweden, there is no particular
political upheaval against the membership, unlike for example the political climate in the
UK. The moderate relationship between Sweden and the EU can also be illustrated by its
euro referendum in 2003. This referendum showed a majority of the Swedish voters (55.9
per cent) were against joining the euro, with only 42 per cent voting 'yes'.36
Sweden could also be considered moderately-successful at applying for EU project funding
(although this varies heavily throughout the country), unlike for example Ireland which
was such a Structural Fund success story that it “transformed … to the extent that it
became ineligible for them.”37 The strength of the Swedish economy also implies less
reliance on EU funding, in particular as it is not even eligible for the Cohesion Fund.
Sweden's EU membership fee was 40.1 billion SEK, with 10.3 billion SEK being received
in so-called flow-back.38 This also makes Sweden a net contributor to the EU.
2.2.2 Local authorities in Sweden
Sweden is divided into three levels of government: national (parliament), regional (county
council), and local (municipality). Today Sweden has one national parliament, 20 county
councils, and 290 municipalities.39 In the region of Skåne, which also makes up one county
council, there are 33 municipalities of varying sizes. This paper deals exclusively with
municipalities, more specifically, this paper focuses on said 33 municipalities in the region
of Skåne,40 not the county council of Skåne. It is nonetheless relevant to understand the
division of responsibilities between regional and local authorities in Sweden. The
parliament is the supreme body of political representation in Sweden, but there is less of a
hierarchy between regional and local authorities as these have different areas of
responsibility, as set out by the Local Government Act 1991.41
36 “Folkomröstning 14 september 2003 om införande av euron,” Valmyndigheten, accessed 14 April 2015, http://www.val.se/val/emu2003/resultat/slutresultat/index.html.
37 David Allen, “The Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Extending the Bargain to Meet New Challenges,” in Policy-Making in the European Union, ed. Helen Wallace et al, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 244.
38 "Sveriges EU-avgift.”39 “Kommuner och landsting,” Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, accessed 14 April
2015, http://skl.se/tjanster/kommunerlandsting.431.html.40 The 33 municipalities in Skåne are: Bjuv, Bromölla, Burlöv, Båstad, Eslöv, Helsingborg, Hässleholm,
Höganäs, Hörby, Höör, Klippan, Kristianstad, Kävlinge, Landskrona, Lomma, Lund, Malmö, Osby, Perstorp, Simrishamn, Sjöbo, Skurup, Staffanstorp, Svalöv, Svedala, Tomelilla, Trelleborg, Vellinge, Ystad, Åstorp, Ängelholm, Örkelljunga, and Östra Göinge.
41 “Kommunallag (1991:900),” Sveriges riksdag, accessed 14 April 2015, http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Kommunallag-
13
Level of government
Public authority(in English)
Public authority(in Swedish)
Number of authorities in Sweden (2015)42
Example areas of responsibility43
National Parliament Riksdag 1 Foreign policy, defence, legislation
Regional County council Region / landsting
20 Healthcare, public transport
Local Municipality Kommun 290 Schools, elderly care, town planning
Table 2. Overview of the three levels of government in Sweden.
Some areas of responsibility for local and regional authorities are compulsory for the set
institution to undertake, while others remain voluntary. For municipalities the compulsory
areas are greater than for county councils and include many of the issues affecting the
everyday lives of citizens, such as schools, social services, elderly care, town planning, and
sewage. Among the voluntary areas are energy, culture and enterprise development.44 The
areas of responsibility effectively set out which EU grants and funds are relevant to
municipalities.
The EU itself focuses on the local level, partly through its principle of subsidiarity,
introduced through the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht Treaty) in 1992. It is the
principle that decisions should be taken as close to the citizens as possible. Although more
commonly used in the context of governance structures and decision-making, the term can
also be applied here, with EU-funded projects being run by organisations (such as local
authorities) close to the citizens. Subsidiarity can also be seen as an EU parallel to the
Swedish concept of local self-governance, which is part of why the Swedish public sector
is heavily weighted towards local authorities taking on huge responsibilities for citizens'
everyday lives.
The local authorities also take on a huge responsibility for implementing EU regulation
1991900_sfs-1991-900.42 “Kommuner och landsting.”43 Ibid.44 “Kommunernas åtaganden,” Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, accessed 14 April
2015, http://skl.se/tjanster/kommunerlandsting/faktakommunerochlandsting/kommunernasataganden.3683.html.
14
and policy, not just through projects. In a report from the Swedish Association of Local
Authorities and Regions (SALAR) in 2010, it was estimated that “the EU affects 60 per
cent of items on municipal council agendas.”45 SALAR also underlined the importance of
the EU's grants and funds in providing “financing for projects that are in line with EU
policies and goals.”46 I hence argue that local authorities are highly important actors.
Figure 2. Map showing the 33 municipalities in Skåne (circles indicate the three sample
municipalities in this study), and the location of these within Sweden and its 257 other
municipalities. Source: Länsstyrelsen Skåne.
2.2.3 Comparability
Using local authorities as a focus for this research paper is also useful in making the
findings more easily comparable between member states, in comparison to other types of
organisations. To put the local authorities in Sweden into context with their counterparts in
other member states, I use the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS),
developed by Eurostat since the 1970s. NUTS is a useful system for comparing the
45 Swedish Association of Local Authorities, EU in local politics – a study of agendas from municipalities, county councils and regions (Stockholm: Swedish Association of Local Authorities, 2010), 1.
46 Ibid, 5.
15
territorial divisions of EU member states, and indeed some non-member states, and is used
in official statistics to and from the European Commission.47 “NUTS regions serve as a
reference for collection, development and harmonization of Community regional statistics,
for the socioeconomic analyses of the regions and for the framing of Community regional
policies.”48 While this paper does not gather statistics as such, the classification under
NUTS is nonetheless relevant to establish comparability of research findings between
member states.
When I discuss local authorities, I refer more generally to the “governing institution which
has authority over a subnational territorially defined area.”49 With municipalities, I refer
more specifically to the type of local authorities classified by Eurostat as Local
Administrative Unit (LAU) level 2 in Sweden.
English-language term Swedish-language term NUTS classification50
Municipality Kommun Local Administrative Unit (LAU) level 2(formerly NUTS level 5)
County council / 'region' Landsting / region NUTS level 3Table 3. Eurostat classification according to NUTS.
2.3 Literature review
A vast body of literature exists on the topic of Europeanisation,51 particularly linked to
either European identity or European integration (or both). Notably, scholars such as Bache
have discussed Europeanisation in conjuncture with multi-level governance theory,52 which
was particularly developed with the study of the EU's cohesion policy and structural funds.
Research in this field has been influential and driven European studies discourses further,
though focused heavily on structural funds and especially the aftermath and changes of
47 “History of NUTS,” Eurostat, accessed 14 April 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/history.48 Anssi Paasi, “Regions and Regional Dynamics,” in The Sage Handbook of European Studies, ed. Chris
Rumford, (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009), 473.49 Iain McLean, and Alistair McMillan, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 312.50 “Local Administrative Units,” Eurostat, accessed 14 April 2015,
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/local-administrative-units.51 See 3.1.2 for my definition of Europeanisation.52 Ian Bache, “Multi-level Governance and European Union Regional Policy,” in Multi-level Governance,
ed. Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
16
Maastricht. However, it is in many ways far from Maastricht (and the EU's overall
structure of funds and funding programmes) to a local authority deciding to apply for EU
project funding.
I have been unable to find research looking specifically at local authorities and their
relationship with EU project funding from the perspective of path dependence or
Europeanisation. Several academics have focused on the projectification of public
authorities, including on a municipal level in Sweden, and mention EU project funding,
though not as a main focus.53 In a journal article in the Scandinavian Journal of Public
Administration, three Swedish researchers examine the projectification in Malmö city
(population-wise the largest of Skåne's 33 municipalities), including analysing EU-funded
projects within the municipality. The topic is approached from a public administration
perspective, however, looking specifically at projectification “as a response to political
demands for collaboration.”54 Projectification remains a relatively new concept within
organisational theory (among other fields), but has been applied also to the EU as a
whole.55 Evaluations of specific EU-funded projects have been carried out also by
scholars,56 although this focuses on only one project (or a series of linked projects).
Regarding the EU's funds and funding programmes, some researchers have focused on a
specific fund, programme or part thereof. Particularly noteworthy, in the context of my
local focus, is Sassatelli who discusses European identity and the impact of the European
Capital of Culture (ECOC) at length, including interviewing civil servants (and similar)
who worked on the applications in applicant cities. I utilise parts of her research to further
my analysis.
Another type of EU funding popular with local authorities (and some scholars) is town
53 See for example: Rebecka Forssell, Mats Fred, and Patrik Hall, “Projekt som det politiska samverkanskravets uppsamlingsplatser: en studie av Malmö stads projektverksamheter,” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 17(2) (2013).
54 Forssell et al, “Projekt som det politiska samverkanskravets uppsamlingsplatser: en studie av Malmö stads projektverksamheter,” 37.
55 Sebastian Godenhjelm, Rolf A. Lundin, and Stefan Sjöblom, “Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union,” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business Vol. 8 Iss. 2 (2015),
56 The project funding recipients must also carry out an evaluation in the final steps of an EU-funded project.
17
twinning, which has also been analysed as a form of Europeanisation.57 However, while
town twinning is today part of the Europe for Citizens funding programme, it has been
taking place in various forms for over a century, predating the EU, and on a municipal
level the concept of twin towns often includes towns outside of the EU.
When dealing with the EU's funds and funding programmes it is worth noting that this is a
particularly fast-moving field, as these are restructured with each new programming period
(every seven years), meaning research quickly becomes outdated as the actors evaluate and
respond to feedback from the previous period. To a lesser extent, the funds and
programmes can also be adapted during the periods, and in between calls for applications.
As the new programming period has only run since 2014, I was unable to find research
covering the new period.
I consider a key point to have been insufficiently covered by previous research: the
structural funds, as well as the EU's other funding programmes, are essentially not
compulsory for local authorities to apply for funding from, and arguably require a
considerable amount of knowledge (of the EU policy objectives, funding opportunities and
calls for applications), as well as networks to find partners (often outside of the national
borders) where required. Path dependence can thus provide a fruitful and new way of
exploring this area. I approach the topic from a grassroots or micro perspective, whereby
my primary focus is on the local authorities and their motivation to take part – as unless
local authorities choose to take part in, or engage with, the EU's funding opportunities,
these opportunities arguably become largely irrelevant.
57 Kristine Kern, "When Europe Hits City Hall: The Europeanization of Cities in the EU Multi-level System," Archive of European Integration, EBSCOhost (2007).
18
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Theory and concepts
Despite the specificity of my research topic – that is, what motivates local authorities to
apply for EU project funding – a variety of theories could be used, depending on one's
scholarly outlook and research aims. Based on the explanatory research aim, and my view
of municipal institutions as a form of 'actors' – impacting how other actors (such as civil
servants) act and shape policy – I have chosen to utilise concepts from both
Europeanisation and path dependency, both serving different purposes.
Merely looking at the applications or even outcomes of individual EU-funded project
would provide only a limited account or snapshots of specific projects, with little
possibility of explaining the continued efforts among many local authorities to apply for
EU funding also for new projects. An EU-funded project does not exist in a vacuum, with
municipal motives only relating to said specific projects. Instead, one must contextualise
the applications and projects – first in the institutional process of the municipality, then in a
wider European sense. Path dependency can help explain the municipal process. However,
the implications of the source of funding being the EU – which pre-accession was a
virtually non-existent source of funding for local authorities – requires the funding
applications to be contextualised further, in the process of Europeanisation.
The analysis of the motivation behind municipalities' project funding applications would
not be complete without an explanation of projects and the so-called projectification of the
public sector. We will see that some projects take a starting point in the EU funding source
(and its objectives), while others would be carried out with or without EU funding. Hence,
the first part of understanding the motivation of the project funding applications is to see
what motivates the projects' existence to begin with. To analyse this, I will use the concept
of projectification, as outlined below.
19
3.1.1 Path dependency
My approach to the research topic was influenced by new institutionalism – more
specifically, sociological institutionalism – while borrowing the ideas of path dependency
from historical institutionalism. The importance of drawing on sociological thinking in
driving European Studies and the studies of Europeanisation forward has also been
highlighted by Radaelli and Saurugger.58 At the same time, I would argue that the role of
institutions and developments within them are often overlooked in research in this field,
perhaps instead focusing more heavily on European integration and Europeanisation
without the necessary contextualisation that institutions provide. Path dependence provides
a framework for contextualising the research topic, while sociological institutionalism
provides a rough theoretical framework and a way of sharpening, or adapting, path
dependency from its origins in historical institutionalism.
In working with the ideas of path dependency, I temporarily discarded the notion that one
should “attribute 'large' outcomes to 'large' causes and emphasize the prevalence of unique,
predictable political outcomes, the irrelevance of timing and sequence, and the capacity of
rational actors to design and implement optimal solutions.”59 On the contrary, path
dependency allows one to distinguish the patterns of timing and sequences, and their
importance for institutions. I borrow the definition of institutions as “the rules of the game
in a society or, more formally … the humanly devised constraints that shape human
interaction”60 from North and Pierson.
Originally popularised by economists, path dependency has since been adapted and applied
across the social sciences, including on the process of European integration61 - particularly
to study European integration of the member states on a state level.62 Path dependency
theory has been used in a variety of academic fields, and taken on multiple meanings, some
58 Claudio Radaelli and Sabine Saurugger, “Foreword,” in Europeanization and European Integration, ed. Ramona Coman, Thomas Kostera and Luca Tomini, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), ix.
59 Paul Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review Vol. 94 No. 2 (2000), 251.
60 Paul Pierson, “The Path to European Integration – A Historical Institutionalist Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 29 No. 2 (1996), 126.
61 Mark A. Pollack, “The New Institutionalisms and European Integration,” in European Integration Theory, ed. Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 127.
62 Pierson, “The Path to European Integration – A Historical Institutionalist Analysis.”
20
more vague than others. A rather broad insight of path dependency is its focus on history,
linked to its origins in historical institutionalism. “Sewell … for instance, suggests path
dependence means 'that what happened at an earlier point in time will affect the possible
outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point in time.' This usage may entail
only the loose and not very helpful assertion that 'history matters.'”63 While history does
matter, it does not automatically provide much basis for an analysis.
Instead, I use a narrower version of path dependency. Using the definition of paths as
“defined by contingent key events, perhaps even small ones, which shape them initially at
a crucial early formative time, but thereafter have large enduring and deep
consequences.”64 The paths can also be further developed and divided, largely if new key
events occur – many of which may be out of the institution's control. “Perhaps a better
metaphor is a tree, rather than a path. From the same trunk, there are many different
branches and smaller branches. Although it is possible to turn around or to clamber from
one to the other – and essential if the chosen branch dies – the branch on which a climber
begins is the one she tends to follow.”65 This definition used by Levi, and later Pierson, is
also the one I shall utilise.
Pierson outlines four features which he considers likely mark settings in which path
dependent processes are taking place: multiple equilibria, contingency, critical role for
timing and sequencing, and inertia.66 I adapt and elaborate on these to determine five
concepts which better suit the examining of municipalities and their motivations for taking
part in EU-funded projects.
Firstly, multiple equilibria – that is, the concept that “under a set of initial conditions
conducive to increasing returns, a number of outcomes – perhaps a wide range – are
generally possible”67 – is arguably only redundantly applied to my research topic. The
initial stage of EU project funding in Sweden sets a relatively clear start for the potential
63 Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” 252.64 Paul Statham, “Forging Divergent and 'Path Dependent' Ways to Europe?: Political Communication over
European Integration in the British and French Public Spheres,” European Political Communication 11/05 (2005), 8.
65 Pollack, “The New Institutionalisms and European Integration,” 127.66 Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” 263.67 Ibid.
21
path dependence to begin. As project funding applications were optional, the basic
conditions upon EU accession meant that municipalities indeed could reach several
different equilibria. I will therefore place heavier analytical weight on the following three
concepts.
What Pierson calls contingency, I consider more broadly to mean key events, which can
have large impact if they happen at the right time. These are “critical moments or
junctures”68 in setting up and continuing the path. Within municipalities, key events will
later be illustrated with an external invitation to a municipality to join an already-
completed project funding application, shortly after Sweden's EU accession, and the
consequences of this project. These key events are contextualised by the third concept:
timing. Timing and sequencing place key events into a context in time, and show the
importance of when an event happens.
Fourthly, the concept of inertia Pierson interprets to mean that “once an increasing returns
process is established, positive feedback may lead to a single equilibrium” which will be
resistant to change. Here I focus on positive feedback, which can for example be
concretised in municipal EU sections in that the more EU-funded projects a municipality
works on, the more contacts with other organisations are made. The more contacts made,
the more offers of new projects a municipality receives, and the participation in EU-funded
projects continues.
I also separate a strand of path dependent increasing returns processes to form the fifth
main concept: cost of exit – that is, the cost of “switching to some previously plausible
alternative.”69 “Increasing returns dynamics … pinpoint how the costs of switching from
one alternative to another will, in certain social contexts, increase markedly over time.” 70
Increasing returns thus includes an understanding of the cost of reversal, or exit, from the
chosen path and how this increases the further down the path an institution continues to
trod.
68 Ibid, 251.69 Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” 252.70 Ibid, 251.
22
Finally, in discussing the logic of the actors' behaviour, the logics of consequences and
appropriateness will be used. Logic of consequences can be explained as that “individuals
are rational actors, with fixed preferences pre-given to social interaction, who calculate and
act in order to maximize their individual gain”71 and belong to a rational approach.
Sociological institutionalism focuses more on logic of appropriateness, that is, that
“institutions shape actor preferences rather than simply shaping the interaction among
individual agents, and individuals act in a legitimate and socially appropriate way.” 72
3.1.2 Europeanisation
The notion of Europeanisation is, and has been, interpreted and used very differently by
different groups of scholars. One could argue these disparities in meaning reflect “the
polysemy of Europe, with its overlapping, but also contrasting and contested, meanings.
These in turn fuel the ambiguity of the phenomenon that increasingly goes by the name of
Europeanization, a term that strives to be more inclusive and less biased than European
integration itself.”73 Through a brief overview of the various meanings of Europeanisation,
I will highlight the concepts I intend to use in herein.
While many different approaches to Europeanisation exist, I use the concept to signify the
process of Europeanisation. Europeanisation could arguably be considered a theory by
some. However, theory can be defined as “a causal argument of universal, transhistorical
validity and nomothetic quality, which can be tested through the falsification of a series of
hypotheses.”74 Simplified, a theory can be seen as “a set of principles that tells you why
people do what they do.”75 Given my chosen definition of Europeanisation, this causality
could not be explained with Europeanisation alone, but rather relies on path dependence
theory for this study.
71 Ian Bache, Simon Bulmer and Defne Gunay, “Europeanization: A Critical Realist Perspective,” in Research Design in European Studies – Establishing Causality in Europeanization, ed. Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio M. Radaelli, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 74.
72 Ibid.73 Monica Sassatelli, Becoming Europeans – Cultural Identity and Cultural Policies (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2009), 1.74 Thomas Diez and Antje Wiener, “Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory,” in European Integration
Theory, ed. Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3.75 Paul S. Gray et al, The Research Imagination An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 4.
23
I do not use Europeanisation as a synonym for European integration. European integration
theory, originating from the field of international relations, has indeed been influential in
the study of the EU (and even its funds and funding programmes). European integration
theories have been developed throughout the history of the EU and its predecessors, the
European Communities. From focusing mainly on explaining integration in the 1960s,
some scholars shifted focus to analysing the governance and political systems of the EU,
eventually looking more and more at the construction of the EU and the social and political
developments effects of European integration.76 Several different approaches to European
integration theory exist, some focusing on market integration and economy as a driver of
integration.
If one approached the topic of EU funds and funding programmes from a supranational
perspective – looking at, for example, how these impact European integration between
regions – several of European integration theories could be relevant. For example, the “EU
cohesion policy has both social and economic aspects and focuses particularly on
developing disadvantaged regions in the context of market integration. The main financial
instruments of cohesion policy are the structural funds,”77 meaning that these funds are
seemingly used as a tool for European integration. One aim of the cohesion policy, and
thus structural funds, is the evening out of differences between regions – arguably also a
deeper form of European integration as well as general EU market integration. However,
for purposes of this paper, European integration theories are arguably too focused on
integration to be useful theories in explaining why municipalities apply for EU project
funding.
Instead, I borrow a definition from sociological institutionalism of Europeanisation as “the
emergence of new rules, norms, practices, and structures of meaning to which member
states are exposed and which they have to incorporate into their domestic structures,”78
though the concept remains quite vague. I limit this further insofar that the new structures I
76 Diez and Wiener, “Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory,” 7.77 Ian Bache, Europeanization and Multilevel governance: Cohesion Policy in the European Union and
Britain (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008), 23.78 Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, Handbook of International Relation (London:
SAGE Publications Ltd., 2012), 520.
24
will focus on originate from the EU. Here, I link Europeanisation directly to the EU, rather
than the geographical limits of Europe. I will not explore the notions of identity (European
or otherwise), as my research is anchored more within path dependency, though I will
discuss the EU and Europe as a form of label or packaging.
Europeanisation can be divided into top-down and bottom-up, and my definition implies a
top-down approach. A third division could be horizontal Europeanisation, which can be
useful in conjunction with top-down here. Horizontal Europeanisation through the sharing
of best practice, for example, arguably takes place as part of the many transnational
projects the EU's funds and funding programmes finance.
3.1.3 Projectification
In the context of EU-funded projects, I borrow the use of the word project from project
management and business terminology, to mean “a cluster of activities that is relatively
separate and clear-cut,”79 with set aims and time frame. For the sake of clarity, I use this
definition as it is in line with the way in which the EU and municipalities deal with
projects in the context of the EU funds and funding programmes. EU projects herein refer
to projects funded by the EU's funds and funding programmes.
Some add the requirement that a project comes about to solve a perceived problem of an
organisation. “The project form is such a solution, which within the EU's funds has
developed a high degree of standardisation. Such an external project financing system
simultaneously makes the organisations which can benefit from it adapt themselves to this
solution.”80
Projectification can be described as the transformation of “some kind of work within a
company or within some other organisation … to be run as a project.”81 It implies a transfer
79 David Cleland, and Lewis Ireland, Project Management: strategic design and implementation, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 4.
80 “Projektformen är en sådan lösning, som inom EU:s fonder har utvecklat en hög grad av standardisering. Ett sådant, externt projektfinansieringssystem får samtidigt organisationerna som kan dra nytta av det att anpassa sig till denna lösning.” (my translation), Forssell et al, “Projekt som det politiska samverkanskravets uppsamlingsplatser: en studie av Malmö stads projektverksamheter,” 39.
81 Godenhjelm et al, “Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union,” 326.
25
of work or task from the hierarchical permanent organisation to a temporary project
organisation (sometimes completely or partially belonging to the same overall organisation
as the hierarchical permanent one). However, the meaning of projectification is wider than
this, and includes “an increasing reliance on temporary organisations, typically projects, in
order to enhance action and strategic effort.”82
As previously outlined, the Structural and Investment Funds and funding programmes fund
projects, and the EU uses these ways of project funding to deliver on its strategic
objectives – such as the Europe 2020 strategy. “Projectification is in other words a key
strategic measure for the EU to get things done. The projectification of member state
governance is also necessary if member states are to live up to EU programme objectives
and expectations as well as to benefit from EU funding.”83 As Godenhjelm, Lundin and
Sjöblom have shown, public authorities in member states need to adapt to projects as a
form of working in order to have a local (or regional or national) structure susceptible to
receiving the funding – let alone apply for the funding. This further supports the notion that
EU project funding applications from institutions are path dependent, although they
approached the topic from the perspective of organisational theory.
82 Ibid, 328.83 Ibid, 333-334.
26
4. Methods and sources
4.1 Methodology
To enable a discussion and answers to my research questions, I approached my research
questions using qualitative methods, namely semi-structured expert interviews with
municipal staff members, analysed using the guiding framework of rhetorical analysis to
deconstruct how the interviewees justify the EU project funding applications. Qualitative
methods, in particular interviews, are useful here as the research topic lends itself well to
more in-depth case studies and interviews as a way of accessing the institutional logic,
going beyond official textual documents and delving deeper into the institutions. In this
instance, quantitative methods would not be suitable for my research aims or exploration of
path dependency, as numbers and similar data would provide scarce material for analysis
of motives.
While a method such as surveys might have enabled me to obtain a larger number of
responses or gather data from more sample municipalities, it would have limited the
possibility of longer answers to open-ended questions and respondents speaking more
freely, in particular if one compares written answers to verbal ones. The analysis of the
rhetoric and argumentation used by the respondents is, I would argue, even more relevant
when applied to the more freely constructed verbal answers than perhaps carefully crafted
written ones, and enables a more direct link to the deeper reasonings at play. As I will
discuss later, I also believe the added credibility of having undertaken an internship with
KFSK and being given contact details by an insider provided a solid backing to the
interviews, and were important in building trust and rapport only possible through face-to-
face interviews.
I considered also using policy documents (for example strategy documents upon which
EU-funded projects are justified within municipalities) which could have provided textual
material for either content or policy analysis, yet decided to use only interviews as
interviewing is better-suited to opening up the deeper functioning and motives of the
institutions. In my research I learnt that this type of policy documentation is largely non-
27
existent, or only exists in an outdated form within Skåne municipalities. The lack of
documentation in this field supports my decision to use interviews, as such textual sources
would provide very limited and skewed data. Another option would be to utilise project
funding applications (which are publicly available documents), but this would not provide
sufficient data for analysis. It would be difficult to get an overview of all projects
undertaken by the sample local authorities, and – most importantly – the nature of the
documents mean they would be adapted by the author(s) to suit the objectives of the fund
or funding programme (in order to obtain the funding applied for). The documents would,
in this sense, be unreliable testimonies of the institutional motivations. Given that each
project application relates only to said project, the lack of overview and deeper insights
into the reasonings of the institution(s) would not be compatible with exploring any path
dependence.
I would argue that the institutional logic and reasonings of the municipalities can only be
reached through interviews, making interviewing the best option for my research aims. My
main sources were three interviews, though I also utilised my observations from an
internship undertaken within KFSK's EU section. Both ways of gathering information rely
on contacts with people who have authored project funding applications and have insights
into the inner functioning of the municipalities – beyond officially adopted policy
documents or other paperwork not always reflecting the everyday pragmatic solutions or
workings.
4.1.1 Interviews
I used semi-structured interviews, to allow interviewees to elaborate as well as associate
relatively freely. The dynamics of semi-structured interviews were more suitable for my
research aims than other more fixed methods. Although the interviews were based on the
same structured questionnaire, I allowed for extra unstructured questions as required,
which would not have been possible through, for example, most types of surveys. Expert
interviews with civil servants, who have extensive technocratic knowledge as well as
experience in working with project funding applications and the processes taking place
around them, also enables the interviewees to be “seen as 'crystallization points' for
practical insider knowledge and are interviewed as surrogates for a wider circle of
28
players.”84 In this case, I used the expert interviewees as representatives of the institutions,
providing a window to the institutional logic.
4.1.2 Rhetorical analysis
To analyse the interview transcripts, I used rhetorical analysis as a guiding methodological
framework. This type of argument analysis is well-suited to the more exploratory research
questions, and allowed me to explore beyond, for example, the discourse as in critical
discourse analysis. Instead rhetorical analysis enabled the argumentation to show through
and provided clues on the chains of reasonings, which was better suited to my research
aims of exploring motivation and exposing potential path dependence. Rhetorical analysis
best allowed for the unpacking of the different elements that I would argue make up the
path-dependence of municipal motives.
“By its very nature, rhetorical analysis is a discursive act: it is creating arguments about
arguments,”85 and the rhetorical tools used can vary between texts (although I will attempt
to use the same between the three texts analysed herein). This flexibility is both a strength
and a weakness, as it can be adapted and applies to a range of material, but also makes it
possibly inconsistent and with a low replicability.
I used a basic model of rhetorical analysis, first establishing the rhetorical situation then
categorising the types of persuasive discourse under stasis theory. I referred to Toulmin
model of argumentation in analysing the argumentation, and also utilised the five classic
rhetorical canons, using guidelines set out by Leach.86 My findings from the three
interview transcripts were then, for clarity of presentation and subsequent discussion,
collated into the five themes used in the interview questionnaires.
4.2 Collection of data
4.2.1 Questionnaire
My main research tool was an extensive questionnaire I designed to be used in the expert
84 Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig and Wolfgang Menz, Interviewing Experts (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 2.
85 Joan Leach, "Rhetorical Analysis," in Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound, ed. Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell (London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2000), 218.
86 Ibid, 225.
29
interviews.87 Given both the depth and width of the questionnaire, I would argue it is
possible to reach valid conclusions also from a sample of three interviews.
To begin with, I determined five main themes from which to explore the municipal
motivations and institutional logic, and based the interview questions around.88 The themes
were:
● professional role and employment of the interviewee
● the municipality and its structure of working with EU-funded projects
● process over time and how EU-funded projects have developed
● strategical planning and implications
● Europeanness and concept of European
They were structured in this order to break in the interview with more uncontroversial and
technical questions on the professional role and employment, before gradually moving on
to wider issues and deeper implications, ending with open questions about Europeanness to
open up for the respondents' reflections also on the concept of European. The final
question asked whether the interviewees wished to add or clarify anything – a final
invitation for the respondents to add any extra thoughts or arguments they may feel that the
other questions might have missed or indeed opened up for further ideas on.
Using a history-focused theory such as path dependency presents the issue of time – more
specifically “the issue of historical methodology (i.e., how to factor time into research
design).”89 I have attempted to factor time into the interviews, to explore processes through
the interview questions. Defining the time period posed a particular issue, partly as the
interviewees had been employed for varying lengths of time (yet I wanted to utilise their
entire knowledge period), and partly as I did not wish to link my questions directly to their
employment. By asking about the period between the earliest and latest projects, rather
than for example the period since the interviewee took up their employment with the
municipality, the focus is not on the personal work of the interviewee but rather on the
institution. Asking an interviewee working on EU projects whether the municipality has
87 See Appendices II and III for the full questionnaire in Swedish (original) and English (translation).88 These themes were later reused for collating the findings of the rhetorical analysis.89 Bache et al, “Europeanization: A Critical Realist Perspective,” 70.
30
become more or less likely to apply for EU projects funding since their employment there
began might be a prestigious matter, and the question could imply that their work should
have had an impact on this. The earliest project that the interviewee mentions is most likely
close in time to when their employment began.
To gain a perspective on the future, I asked the respondents to compare the previous
programming period with the ongoing one (ending in 2020), and whether more, the same,
or fewer EU-funded projects would be undertaken in the municipality. The potential
change in importance of EU-funded projects to the municipality was also explored,
inviting reflections on the institutionalisation and potential incorporation of the EU funding
structure into the institution, together with questions on strategy and EPA.
By using questions carefully formulated to maximise neutrality, I aimed to minimise the
potential bias of myself as researcher. As interviewer, I also attempted to remain as neutral
as possible in any reactions and the few follow-up questions.
4.2.2 Interviews
I carried out the interviews in Swedish, with each one lasting between 45 and 90 minutes.
Swedish is the working language of Swedish public authorities and the native language of
all interviewees and the researcher. The regional dialect of Skåne did not present a
problem, as both interviewees and researcher are fluent in this. The interview transcripts
were analysed in Swedish, with only quotes included in this paper being translated into
English. This was done to minimise the possibility of for instance linguistic differences and
connotations being lost in translation before the analysis. For transparency and validity, the
original Swedish quotes are given as footnotes.
I did not offer the interviewees the option of anonymity. This was largely due to the limited
number of municipal civil servants working with EU projects in Skåne. Anonymity would
also have required me to anonymise the municipality, as many municipalities in Skåne
have only one employee (or even less, such as an employee shared with other
municipalities) working with EU projects. The content of the interviews could be
considered somewhat sensitive, due to for example discussing the decision-making
processes and priority-setting in a municipality, however in my previous observations I
31
have noted an openness among civil servants to these issues, and did not deem the lack of
anonymity to impact negatively on the validity of this study. No interviewee mentioned
anonymity, nor did they in any way object to having the interview recorded.
4.2.3 Case studies (local authorities)
The region of Skåne, as defined by Swedish county council and municipal boundaries, was
the geographical limit for selecting the sample. Out of its 33 municipalities, a sample of
three was selected, representing an eleventh of the total number. The three case studies
were Kristianstad, Vellinge and Svalöv municipalities, representing a mix both in terms of
location, size, rural/urban area, and political affiliations of the municipal assembly. The
municipalities also each have at least one employee working with EU funds and funding
programmes (and does not share said employee with another municipality), and who had
worked on multiple EU project funding applications.
Although the municipalities in Skåne are governed by different local politicians, in various
political party constellations – some mirroring the allegiances of their national party
counterparts, and some in more rare collaborations – the underlying governance structure
of Swedish municipalities is the same90 and the municipalities are regulated under the same
law.91 One could therefore deem it likely that other Swedish municipalities would have
similar institutional experiences and developments to the sample, given the similar areas of
responsibilities for all local authorities in Sweden, and the (relatively) similar availability
of public funding. As mine and previous research92 have shown the highly limited
involvement of elected public officials in the implementation of EU funding opportunities,
I consider the political make-up of the municipal assembly, municipal executive
committtee and working sub-committee of the municipal executive committee to have only
limited impact on the comparability between municipalities in Sweden.
90 An exception to this is Gotland, an island on the Swedish east coast, which is one municipality but has taken on the responsibility otherwise held by the regional authority (see Chapter 4, 4.1.4 Structure of Swedish local authorities). Gotland has the right to call itself a 'region' as well as a municipality. Nevertheless, the governance structure in terms of public voting, political representation, and civil service remains the same. See “Kommuner och landsting.”
91 “Kommunallag (1991:900).”92 Ian Bache and Rachael Chapman, “Democracy through Multilevel Governance? The Implementation of
the Structural Funds in South Yorkshire,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21(3) (2008), 401.
32
4.2.4 Interviewees (civil servants)
I interviewed one civil servant in each of the three sample municipalities. Through
interviewing civil servants, I wished to come as close to the institutions as possible. While
politicians change with elections, the civil service provides the institutional backbone, and
arguably function in closer connection to the institutionalised logic. Previous studies by
Bache and Olsson have also shown that “in practice, the technocratic nature of the
implementation process [of EU funds] in Sweden marginalized elected politicians to such
an extent that their influence was minimal.”93
The interviewees within the selected municipalities were chosen from the membership
list94 of the 'Brussels network' of KFSK.95 This list of potential interviewees was
legitimised by the municipalities themselves, as the members of the network are put
forward by their employer municipality. By selecting the person(s) to represent the
municipality in the Brussels network, the organisation makes clear that an employee is
responsible for issues relating to the EU (which on this local level almost exclusively relate
to EU projects) within the municipality.
I considered also formally interviewing a civil servant from KFSK's EU section for a wider
overview of the motivations, but ultimately such an interview would be a step further
removed from the decision-making processes in municipalities. Nevertheless, an informal
meeting was carried out with the civil servant officially titled EU strategist (at KFSK) and
responsible for the Swedish part of their EU section.96 The main purpose of the meeting
was to explore the current situation of EU funds and funding programmes97 specific to
Skåne, and finding potential interviewees and their contact information. My hope was that
“equipped with the added bonus of the support of an expert in a key position [such as a
staff member of KFSK's EU section], the researcher may then often find it easier to gain
93 Ibid.94 “Brysselnätverket,” Skåne Association of Local Authorities, last modified 8 April 2015, accessed 20 April
2015, http://kfsk.se/ledningochutveckling/eu-och-brysselkontoret/brysselkontoret/brysselnatverket.95 All of Skåne's municipalities are members of the Skåne Association of Local Authorities
(Kommunförbundet Skåne), which is a member-owned public organisation. See 4.2.5 Observation, as well as “Brysselnätverket.”
96 KFSK also has a representation office in Brussels, making up the Brussels part of its EU section.97 As the current programming period (2014-2020) only officially began in 2014, it has taken some time for
the funds and programmes to get up and running, and publicise their first calls for applications. This process has differed greatly between funding programmes and funds, with some still not having carried out their first call for applications 16 months after the programming period began.
33
access to an extended circle of experts.”98 In my experience this support was indeed
valuable, and also gave myself and this study an added credibility in the contact with
interviewees.
4.2.5 Observation
I spent nearly five months undertaking an internship with KFSK, specifically working
within their EU section, during the spring and summer of 2014. My working hours were
mixed part-time and full-time depending on my university studies, but in total I spent the
equivalent of nine weeks full-time work there. The internship included gathering
information on EU project funding calls of relevance to municipalities, taking part in
meetings with municipalities regarding potential EU projects, as well an EPA which the
Association carries out in municipalities. I also took part in network meetings of the KFSK
Brussels network.99 After my internship, during the research process of this paper, I
observed the Brussels network meeting in Kristianstad in April 2015.
Regarding my internship with KFSK, I recognise the possibility for bias. It could taint my
view and analysis of the material gathered, but through the set-out theoretical frameworks
of Europeanisation and path dependency, as well as methods outlined here, my intention is
for the material to gain voices of its own.
98 Bogner, Littig and Menz, Interviewing Experts, 2.99 KFSK's Brussels Network (Brysselnätverket) is a network organised by KFSK's EU section, to enable
knowledge exchange regarding EU projects, between Skåne's municipalities. The municipalities themselves put forward the civil servant(s) to take part and represent said municipality within this network.
34
5. Findings
5.1 Rhetorical analysis
Beginning with some aspects shared by all three interviews, I will then move on to a more
detailed outline of the arguments used by the respondents to motivate why the municipality
applies for EU project funding. Through the lens of rhetorical analysis, I will analyse these
argumentations, before moving on to Chapter 6 where the argumentations will be discussed
using the frameworks of path dependence and Europeanisation.
5.1.1 Overview of discourses
The analysed texts are transcripts of semi-structured expert interviews I carried out with a
civil servant in three municipalities. The context is thus rather specific, as the texts were
'commissioned' (through interviewing) with the purpose of being analysed. The three texts
arguably participate in both forensic rhetoric, centred “around the nature and cause of past
events,”100 and deliberate rhetoric, discussing the future strategies and events. This is also
linked to the theme and type of interview questions posed. I largely organised the
disposition of the discourse through my interview questions, also framing it in the rituals of
an academic interview, though leaving space for respondents to structure and develop their
answers with open-ended questions and little interview interference. As the interview
answers were recorded and not anonymised, the argumentation should also be seen in this
context. The respondents were not sent the questions in advance, giving less opportunity
for respondents to prepare their argumentation or phrasing in advance.
The direct audience of the texts is the researcher, in that the respondents spoke directly to
me, sitting across a table where I was either the only other person present in the room, or
the only person within earshot. Another factor invisible in the written transcript, but vital
for context, is the impact of the interviewer. As a young female researcher, with a particular
interest in the impact of the EU on a local level, I could be perceived as a potential future
municipal employee (in the same sector as the respondents). Gender and age based bias
could also have an impact, and can be seen in addresses such as “your generation”101 in the
100 Leach, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 213.101 “din generation,” Svalöv interview.
35
interviews.
As the respondents were aware of my research and the data collection purposes of the
interview, the implied audience is also the potential readers of my research material. A
further audience, becoming evident in the discourses, are municipalities in general (and
municipalities in Sweden in particular), as respondents express wishes and advice for other
municipalities. For example, “I wish people used the EU programmes more strategically
within the public sector. Since much of – most of the money – are actually earmarked to
organisations running on tax money, and we are pretty bad at that in Sweden.”102 The other
municipalities could be reached both through my final written research report (this research
paper), or through my future interviews or general interactions with other municipalities. In
terms of answering my research questions, the respondents might have adapted their
argumentation to fit the social expectations on them in their professional role.
In terms of ethos, an indirect appeal for credibility shared by all three respondents is their
civil service employment. Supposed objectivity lies in the nature of the civil service, as
civil servants are intended to remain politically neutral in their work. The respondents
make references to the political structures in the municipalities, but make clear that they
are separate from this. While all three respondents were experts (and chosen as
interviewees as such), the Kristianstad respondent was an expert also in the academic field
of European studies. The respondent was also familiar with interviewing techniques,
including having carried out research interviews herself.
Two interviewees (Vellinge and Svalöv) had been employed considerably longer than
Kristianstad, both repeatedly mentioning their years of experience. “The assignment I have
today is from '96, but I have been here since '86. So that is very many years. It will be 30
years next year.”103 The respondents mention a broad range of EU-funded projects that they
have worked on, and that one becomes updated with a variety of areas through these
projects. This again attempts to appeal to credibility by showing broad knowledge and
102 “Jag önskar att man använde EU-programmen mer strategiskt i offentlig sektor. Eftersom många av – de flesta av pengarna – är ju faktiskt öronmärkta till organiationer som går på skattemedel och vi är rätt dåliga på det i Sverige.” Vellinge interview.
103 “Det uppdrag jag har idag det är från '96, men jag har varit här sedan '86. Så det är väldigt många år. Det är 30 år nästa år.” Vellinge interview.
36
experience, as well as some seniority and personal prestige. One project is specified as
being with a tourist organisation but important enough to meet the city mayor. The frequent
mentions of various projects, often in detail, also creates a form of transferred ethos onto
projects – as if the EU-funded projects require credibility too.
5.1.2 Argumentation of motivation
Following a detailed rhetorical analysis of each interview transcript, I extracted the
arguments used by the respondents as to the motivations of the municipalities in applying
for EU project funding, arranging them into topics. To enable a clearer and more coherent
overview herein, I then grouped the topics into the five original themes used as a basis for
the questionnaire. The arguments are, however, drawn from the entirety of the interviews
and do not solely relate to the answers to the questions within said theme.
Firstly, the professional role and employment of the someone to coordinate or facilitate
EU-funded projects within the municipality is central to the respondents line of argument.
This could be because they are chosen as experts since they are themselves working in this
position, and highlighting the importance of these positions adds to their credibility. One
respondent refers to themselves as “party to the [court] proceedings,”104 using a metaphor
to indicate their central role in the issue while implying that they are indeed on trial and in
need of justification. Another specifies how their three-man team developed from 1999-
2000 onwards was “a very deciding shape, I believe, to make it [EU project funding
applications] work.”105 All respondents also repeatedly stress the importance of staff
member(s) being given sufficient working hours to organise “EU development or EU
coordination,”106 and not a part-time assignment of 20% of their working hours. One even
compares the appointment of a full-time EU coordinator versus one with only a few
designated hours to “two-speed Europe,”107 but instead a form of two-speed Skåne whereby
municipalities which invest and structure the work on applications can be differentiated
with “how far one has reached.”108
104 “part i målet” Vellinge interview.105 “en väldigt avgörande form då tror jag för att det ska fungera” Svalöv interview.106 “EU-utveckling eller EU-samordning” Svalöv interview.107 “Two-speed Europe” Kristianstad interview.108 “hur långt man har nått” Kristianstad interview.
37
The cost of employing an EU coordinator109 is, argue the respondents, a motive for
continuing to apply for EU project funding, and even increasing the volume of projects
undertaken by the municipality (particularly the financial volume rather than merely the
number of projects). Recouping the employment costs is argued to be important from both
the perspective of the municipality as employer and the individual, and acts as both a
barrier (that is, belief that the investment will not be returned) and incentive. One
respondent said “In some ways people are a bit stingy there, because people think that if
one assigns staff to work on EU projects they just cost money, they believe, so they don't
get that two such full-time positions could pull in five-six times as much money as they
cost.”110 Hierarchy within the institution is also pointed to, “what is noticed upwards – to
put it that way – is at the same time the money,”111 and the argued belief of newly
employed EU coordinators that “one's own efficiency is measured in money, brought-in
money, or what to call it, EU funds.”112
Another argument within the area of employment is the personal knowledge gained by
taking part in EU-funded projects. All respondents bring this up as a positive aspect, saying
that you need to be a specialist on the EU but a generalist in other relevant areas. The
emotional motivation of enjoyment is also appealed to by the respondents, who all refer to
(at least some) EU projects and their job role as being fun. At the same time, two mention
other projects being explicitly boring, and less fruitful. The personal feelings of the
respondents are appealed to, and can serve as motivators to continue with further projects.
One respondent uses the metaphor of being the “dad”113 of one project he conceived.
Personal prestige of the employee also seems to play a role, while building the personal
credibility or ethos of the respondent. One mentions successfully writing project
applications worth around 100 million SEK in EU funding, and the pride of politicians and
109 I use 'EU coordinator' to denote a civil servant with some form of professional responsibility for EU-funded projects within said municipality. The respondents had varying official job titles, as do EU coordinators across Skåne's municipalities.
110 “På något sätt är man lite snål där, för att man tycker att tillsätter man personal som ska syssla med EU-rpojekt så kostar de bara pengar tror de, så fattar de inte att två sådana heltider skulle kunna dra in fem-sex gånger de pengarna som de kostar.” Vellinge interview.
111 “det som märks uppåt – om man uttrycker sig på detta sättet – är ju samtidigt pengarna.” Kristianstad interview.
112 “ens egen effektivitet mäts i pengar, i indragna pengar, eller vad man ska säga, EU-medel” Kristianstad interview.
113 “Det är jag pappa till, det.” Vellinge interview.
38
higher management as to how many EU-funded projects the municipality has taken part in.
Another appeals to the emotions of legacy, wishing to leave behind a testament or will,114
when he retires, of the municipality being a lead partner in a prestigious project. The
different project types and the municipal role in the partner consortium is particularly
interesting here, with “many kinda school exchange projects and such”115 being more easily
grouped and seemingly less likely to leave a memory.
Moving onto the municipal structure and the way the municipalities work with EU
projects, several themes emerge in the argumentation. Again, the different types of projects
are argued to be motivated by different things, as they also allow for different aims to be
incorporated, with a main difference being between funds with national management and
programmes requiring projects of transnational character. The “classical, Swedish
programme areas”116 are focused more on for example staff training, and considered “navel
gazing”117 by one respondent. Yet have been very popular, which one respondent justifies
with finance: a specific objective strand of ESF required no match-funding in the last
programming period. Financing is also linked to the continuation of project applications, as
one respondent argues that poor financial planning of a project leave municipalities out of
pocket meaning they must find “new, fresh money”118 to fund these costs.
Another aspect of financing is a municipality bringing in cash until the EU actually
releases the project funding. One of the earliest EU projects Svalöv took part in was
entered when the project application was already virtually completed and the INTERREG
III “programme office … made clear they wanted a Swedish party included.”119 A regional
authority rejected working with the project, and Svalöv joined instead, in the end receiving
EU funding for a local national park project the institution was already planning to do
without EU funding. “And this is perhaps most important of all – it is so that we are still in
contact with this network. So when a project idea appears with anyone, we belong to those
who get asked first if this is something for us. And that means that we have so much more
114 “testamente” Svalöv interview.115 “mycket sådär skolutbytesprojekt och sånt” Kristianstad interview.116 “klassiska, svenska programområdena” Svalöv interview.117 “navelskådandet” Svalöv interview.118 “nya, fräscha pengar” Svalöv interview.119 “programkontoret … konstaterade att de ville ha med en svensk part” Svalöv interview.
39
time than many others.”120 The importance of networks and external actors are also brought
up by the other two respondents, in particular to facilitate project partnerships by
collaborating more informally at first, inspiring each other and discussing ideas from the
onset.
Internally, the initiation of projects is argued to be versatile in terms of where in the
institution the ideas originate, though always the civil service. A phrase used by two
respondents (and several others in my observations) is “fire souls [enthusiasts],”121
describing civil servants of various capacities who are enthusiasts for either development
of their own section or the EU (or both), and thus initiate projects. All respondents mention
the need for strategic thinking about projects already as they are initiated, though one
respondent wishes for a balance. “At the same time I also don't want to remove the
possibility that projects are initiated by – to put it that way – people who work on the
floor”122 - arguably a poignant metaphor for grassroots initiatives within the institution.
The attitude of management is another key theme frequently brought up by all respondents.
“I had to work like an animal to get the idea through, most were against it”123 though the
support of management is argued to lead to more projects. Education and familiarity with
even the notion of EU funds and funding programmes existing is also brought up as an
important factor. “Not, like, that everyone should know exactly how, which funds exist and
so on, but that they can know that the opportunity exist so that they contact me,”124
qualifying the claim that even superficial knowledge impacts. In one municipality all EU
project funding applications are approved by the executive sub-committee of the municipal
working committee125 where “I would like to claim that most politicians feel like hostages
when you come in with a project suggestion … They have it like really tricky, because on
120 “Och det här kanske är det viktigaste av allt – det är ju att vi har ju fortfarande kontakt i det här nätverket. Så när det dyker upp en projektidé hos någon så tillhör vi ju dem som blir först tillfrågade om det här är någonting för oss. Och det gör ju att vi har mycket mer tid på oss än många andra.” Svalöv interview.
121 “eldsjälar.”122 “Samtidigt så vill jag ju inte heller ta bort möjligheten av att projekt initieras av -om man uttrycker sig så
– folk som arbetar på golvet.” Kristianstad interview.123 “Jag fick slita som ett djur för att få igenom tanken, de flesta var ju emot det” Svalöv interview.124 “Inte liksom att alla ska känna till exakt hur, vilka fonder som finns och så, men att man väl kan känna
till att det finns den möjligheten så att man kontaktar mig.” Kristianstad interview.125 I use official SALAR translations. In Swedish: kommunstyrelsens arbetsutskott.
40
their part they like feel a bit like 'what the hell is this?' kinda.”126 The simile of politicians
as hostages to the EU show the importance placed on empirical knowledge.
An aspect which all respondents argue does speak to management and the political
leadership is the added funding made possible through EU funds and funding programmes,
in particular for development. The details of funding plans within a project budget are
discussed by all respondents, including brandishing more or less successful approaches.
Two paradoxes appear here. The diminishing public funding for municipalities is argued to
mean less time and money for the running of EU-funded projects, even though EU-funded
projects are exactly that: EU-funded (at least partially). Another paradox is the importance
placed on money by some management, pushing forward for example projects where
match-funding is not required, yet the strategic focus is increasingly intended to be “yeah
yeah like screw the money, what's interesting is what we get out of them.”127 Money is also
discussed as a motivator and an entitlement, a way of recouping the Swedish EU
membership fee. Respondents discuss how “we” (Sweden) do not recoup this money, and
“we” should be more like Denmark who supposedly recoup “at least 70 per cent of their
membership fee instead of half.”128
Specifically strategy – the next theme of my questionnaire – is a central point in the
argumentations, though the approach of the different institutions differ. The existence of an
EU or international strategy is argued to be less important by the two respondents who
have none or no recently updated strategy, while the respondent who created one in 2011
and is revising it, argues it is central to the institutional work. The strategic documents or
aims given are mentioned in lofty terms such as “yeah, okay, sometimes they can say like
'yes, well now we ought to apply for more EU money!'”129 One interview question brings
up the EU project analysis carried out by KFSK, which only one institution has had. While
it is argued to have brought little new to the table, the added legitimacy of an external
organisation carrying out and presenting the analysis is highlighted as having a positive
effect on the management's prioritising of EU project funding applications.
126 “Jag skulle vilja påstå att de flesta politiker känner sig som gisslan när man kommer med ett projektförslag som man ska vara inne i … De har liksom jätteknepigt, för deras del så känner de att liksom 'va fan är detta?' ungefär” Svalöv interview.
127 “jaja, skit i pengarna liksom, det intressanta är ju vad vi får ut av dem” Kristianstad interview.128 “åtminstone 70 procent av medlemsavgiften istället för hälften” Svalöv interview.129 “jo, okej, ibland så kan de säga såhär 'ja, men nu måste vi söka mer EU-pengar!'” Svalöv interview.
41
Focusing on the process over time, or how the motivation has developed over time, all
respondents reflected upon the changes during their employments. The shifting of attitudes
from considering working on EU-funded projects as “only being travelling on a shrimp
sandwich [galavanting] in Europe, they didn't think you were working if you weren't in the
office, but that you were out and travelling and having fun.”130 As the requirements for
communicating the results and projects became stricter from the EU, one respondent
argued it has become easier to gain support from management. The support from teams
within the institution also requires consideration, and is argued as being critical. Any
internal changes or staffing must first function, to provide ground for the EU-funded
development projects, with internal restructuring having potential to displace an otherwise
actively applying institution.
Experience also evolves the way institutions work with EU project funding applications,
with one municipality argued to benefit from employing a staff member with prior
experience of EU projects (having worked with them prior to Sweden's EU accession).
Starting with smaller projects, rather than aiming too high, is also argued to be a starting
point – both for the institution and for the collaborations and network experience gained,
whereby a small project leads to a bigger one (sometimes explicitly through pre-study
projects).
Although the concept of projectification is never explicitly mentioned, respondents discuss
the notion of 'projects' as a system for organising work. “To work in EU projects you have
to understand the actual idea behind the EU projects … So why do we have it really? Yes it
is because we have changed to a transferring system where you get to compete for who
gets the money instead.”131 Another respondent argues that the downside to participating in
EU-funded projects is the project shape of them, creating difficulties in implementing the
results and ensuring institutional support and grounding. The results vary depending on the
project (with some projects, for example, consisting of education or training, and few
130 “bara var att åka på en räkmacka i Europa, de trodde inte att man jobbade om man inte var på kontoret, utan att man var ute och reste och roade sig.” Vellinge interview.
131 “för att jobba i EU-projekt så måste du förstå själva idéen med EU-projekten och det är inte särskilt implementerat i Sverige … Alltså varför har vi det egentligen? Ja det är ju för att vi har bytt till ett sådant transfereringssystem där man får tävla om vem det är som får pengar istället” Svalöv interview.
42
results to implement), but are argued as important motivators to continue applying for new
project funding. During the ongoing programming period “it might not necessarily mean
that we will pull in more money but that we, like that we are a little more restrictive with
what we go into. And what we choose to commit to, so that we maybe instead can invest a
little more time and resources and money in the projects which actually engage us,”132
implying that the past programming period(s) had different focus for the institution.
The impact of the new programming period, whereby many funding programmes and
funds have been delayed for months to years, is presented as negative for the
municipalities and project applications – causing a dip in the number of projects and
amount of funding obtained, “while we have been waiting for the new ones.”133 The
respondents' wordings show the passive wait and acceptance of the programme periods and
funds as given top-down, with municipalities having to work with what they get. At the
same time, the level of detail required in the end reporting and financial accounting of the
funded projects is mentioned as a deterrent for a “regular organisation which isn't really
used to this, they only apply once and then they never do it again because they never again
want to put themselves into that situation”134 of bureaucracy.
My final theme is Europeanisation, which included argumentation around breaking down
stereotypes and the importance of diversity and collaborating with partners from other EU
member states. Town twinning existed before the EU but is now part of its Europe for
Citizen programme, and was mentioned by all three respondents. The sampled
municipalities all collaborate, or have collaborated, with their twinned local authorities,
highlighting the importance of this network. “So it isn't just that we like only have official
meetings but rather we try to also cooperate on issues in different ways”135 such as EU-
funded projects from other areas (such as INTERREG) than strictly town twinning.
Interestingly, one respondent discussed being heavily opposed and voting against EU
132 “det kanske inte nödvändigtvis kommer att betyda att vi kommer dra in mer pengar men att vi, som att vi är lite mer restriktiva med var vi går in. Och vad vi väljer att satsa på, så att vi kanske istället kan satsa på lite mer tid och resurser och pengar på de projekt som faktiskt engagerar oss” Kristianstad interview.
133 “när vi har väntat på de nya” Kristianstad interview.134 “vanlig organisation som inte riktigt är van vid det här, de söker bara en gång sedan gör de det aldrig mer
för de vill aldrig mer försätta sig i den situationen” Vellinge interview.135 “Så att det är inte så liksom att vi bara har officiella träffar utan vi försöker också ha samarbete inom
frågor på olika sätt” Svalöv interview.
43
accession in the Swedish referendum, yet has since accepted the framework of EU funding,
and argued he has now worked more with EU issues and other member states than most
colleagues who before the referendum spoke of the importance of European solidarity. The
respondent would also classify himself as European,136 though not the municipality. In
contrast to this, another respondent would classify both herself and the municipality as
European, although qualified this to say it is not part of the city's official marketing unlike
other nearby cities. The third respondent hesitated to describe the municipality as
European, yet eventually said it was, giving the reason that it hangs up the EU flag.
Despite initially defining European geographically, the warrant or principle behind the
claim to Europeanness seems linked to ethnosymbolism and something deeper than
geographical state and continent boundaries.
The principle of diversity as something positive137 and developing also seems to warrant
the claim that EU-funded projects are good for municipalities, with the breaking down of
stereotypes and widening of horizons being used as grounds for this. “And then that is
maybe what is the most important in, as I experience it, in this whole working in projects
thing, that it is a damn lot of humans who one has met and who have influenced one's way
of thinking and looking at things.”138 Another respondent reasoned that EU-funded projects
benefit municipalities because it means “lifting your eyes from the duck pond. So you get
like input from others, it is not always comfortable in the partnerships and to run EU
projects. But it is precisely where you are uncomfortable, it is there where you develop. If
everyone just thinks the same then there'll be like no change.”139 Shifting the institutional
focus from finances to this value-based argumentation seems key here, or as one
respondent claimed, “It feels even more relevant and it's what we would like to do
more.”140
136 Each respondent was also asked to define the word 'European' and all mentioned similar definitions based on geography, although one limiting this to e.g. EU and EEA countries and mentioning the difficulty in finding a common European definition and ground.
137 Cf. EU slogan of “united in diversity.”138 “och då är det kanske det viktigaste i, som jag upplever, i det här med projektarbetet, att det är en jäkla
massa människor som man har träffat och som har påverkat ens sätt att tänka och se på saker och ting” Svalöv interview.
139 “lyfta blicken från ankdammen. Alltså man får ju input ifrån andra, det är inte alltid bekvämt vid partnerskapen och att driva EU-projekt. Men det är just där man är obekväm, det är ju oftast där som man utvecklas Om alla bara tycker samma så blir det ju liksom ingen förändring.” Vellinge interview.
140 “Det känns ju ännu mer relevant och det skulle vi ännu mer vilja göra.” Kristianstad interview.
44
This principle seems to be backed or justified by referring to the EU and the structure of
funding applications. The respondents mention that it creates competition with only the
best (seen from the programme management and its experts' viewpoint) receiving funding.
The EU focus on innovation is interpreted as requiring highly innovative projects, which is
compared to creating a sharp uphill struggle for institutions having to do avant-garde
projects. “Many of the things we did in EU projects in the beginning of the 2000s, it is now
that they're up. It is 15 years later, more than ten years later.”141
In the early days of Swedish EU membership, it seems the focus was more on exporting
Swedish values as well as technocratic knowledge to the newer democracies in Europe. For
example, one municipality took part in a project with Estonia where the Swedish partner
wrote a plan for creating sustainable tourism, taking pride in this export of sorts.
The theme of Europeanisation is shown deeper in the discourses, with no respondent
explicitly mentioning the concept, yet through rhetorical analysis these unstated chains of
reasoning appear. For example, the integration of the EU project funding opportunities into
the municipal organisational structure is positive, and a requirement, to enable the
municipalities to claim back what is theirs (the EU membership fee paid with Swedish
public money). Yet there is also the value-based principle similar to “united in diversity”
whereby EU-funded projects enable the breaking down of stereotypes and new ways to
develop with the help of – often non-Swedish – organisations. The acceptance of the
current system is clear, with Europeanisation seen as a compulsory process – made
inevitable through the EU membership referendum and accession. Local authorities can
adapt to the process either willingly (and more quickly through structures, EU coordinators
and strategic planning) or more forcibly (having to keep up with public spending cuts and
faster-developing neighbouring authorities) – creating a two-speed Skåne.
5.2 Observations
As previously stated, I undertook a five-month internship within KFSK's EU section. As
such I have been an eye-witness to some of the processes taking place within
municipalities and KFSK with regard to EU project funding applications. During the
141 “Många av de saker vi gjorde i EU-projekt i början av 2000-talet, det är nu de är uppe. Det är 15 år senare, mer än tio år senare.” Vellinge interview.
45
observation of the Brussels network meeting in April, I was present in a combined role of
former intern (and thus, insider) and present-day researcher. I tried to be aware of my
personal biases, and avoid selective observation. Most of my observations took place
before the official research process behind this paper began, but the insider observations I
made have nonetheless aided my understanding of how these institutions work, as well as
the processes around EU projects, and the social networks in this field of work.
The potential usefulness of path dependency as a theoretical tool in this field originated
from my observations. One concept I noticed being frequently mentioned was “project
maturity.”142 It can be defined as the build-up of experience and knowledge on working in
projects, within an institution. In this case, it is more narrowly applied to municipalities,
and the project workings relate largely to EU-funded projects. It is implied that the project
maturity increases with each EU-funded project a municipality takes part in, creating
prestige or seniority of being more “mature,” and enabling larger projects which
immaturity or lack of prior experience/steps would have hindered. I would argue that part
of the project maturity can also be the institutionalisation of structures to deal with EU-
funded projects and applications.
The metaphor of “maturity” also shows, in a sense, the underlying provision that earlier
EU-funded projects will later more or less inevitably lead to bigger and more “mature”
projects (with more complex topics/structures, larger partner consortia, increased budgets).
The “maturity” implies a form of single equilibrium – birth inevitably destines us to mature
from our infancy or childhood and grow bigger and older. Only death – the complete cut-
off and leaving of the path perhaps? - can stop our bodies from maturing.
142 “projektmognad.”
46
6. Analysis and discussion
6.1 Path dependency
6.1.1 Multiple equilibria
My topic has a relatively clearly defined beginning: the EU accession of Sweden (at which
point Sweden overall became eligible for EU project funding). The early years after the
accession are often, from my interviews and observations, characterised as quite chaotic
with regard to EU-funded projects. Municipalities seemed to view the EU as something for
the Foreign Office, not local authorities in their everyday work. That said, SALAR opened
a Brussels office already in 1993 to, among other things, gather information and keep
updated on how the EU would impact local authorities.143 Although, as the Svalöv
interview revealed, Länsstyrelsen began dabbing their feet before the accession, it was very
rare.
The initial conditions in 1995 and the following few years created situations where
multiple equilibria and paths were still available to municipalities and their institutions. 144
The EU accession did, I would argue, not automatically create a single possible outcome
(municipalities actively applying for EU project funding, and incorporating a structure for
this into their institutions), but rather left a range of options possible. Despite Sweden
joining the EU, the municipalities could for example continue on paths such as only taking
part in very small projects, or only applying for funding from the funds managed in
Sweden (without any transnational partners – or perhaps even partners at all). They could
be a partner but not lead partner. Ultimately, a municipality could – at least theoretically –
reject any participation in EU-funded projects and apply for none.
Arguably the path of a municipality began around the Swedish EU accession, with key
events around that time also causing a municipality to take a certain path.
143 “The office in Brussels,” Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, accessed 10 May 2015, http://skl.se/tjanster/englishpages/aboutsalar/theofficeinbrussels.1141.html.
144 Here it would be useful to compare the development of a path (or paths) from EU accession, between my findings in Skåne/Sweden and for example newer member states.
47
6.1.2 Key events
On a larger national and regional scale, the major key event is the EU accession, as
outlined above. The chain of reasoning of interview respondents consider the current
situation an almost inevitable result of the accession. Yet this underlying institutional
reasoning – and passive acceptance of the structure around EU funds and funding
programmes – may be part of what has driven the path forward as the belief (or path) has
been reinforced through for example positive feedback. Other ways were possible, but
have been discarded.
Other key events to consider is the creation of the Brussels offices of SALAR, driving
further integration into the EU funds and funding programmes, and helping to shape the
importance of the EU within SALAR – in turn communicated out to local authorities.
Another key event from an external institution is the 2013 creation of the KFSK
representation office in Brussels, furthering the focus on the EU also here. Other
municipalities also influence by suggesting a shared EU coordinator position, or a shared
EU coordination office (such as in Hässleholm).
Networks can also arguably constitute key events. All respondents mention “twinned
towns”145 and working with them. Prior networks – such as twinned towns – become
breeding ground for larger collaborations, for example on EU-funded projects. What may
have seemed like a small event at the time (twinning with another local authority), can see
this twinning accepted into the institution, shaping the desire for future collaborations, as
shown earlier. The varying levels of EU project activity within local authorities also impact
the path. For instance, a twinned town local authority which is very active in applying for
EU project funding may lead to their twinned town partners being invited to more project
partner consortia, and eventually taking part in more EU-funded projects.
On a municipal level, the findings suggest several key events. A key event for Svalöv
appears to be the ad-hoc invitation to join an already written INTERREG project, shortly
after EU accession. The relatively small event of this invitation lead to a project considered
highly successful by the programme office (and the municipality), but most importantly –
145 “vänorter.”
48
according to my findings – it created a network of potential partners who are also previous
partners and still invite Svalöv to projects. The early positive experience of this event is
part of designating Svalöv's path – and improving their situation in the future (as early
project invitations mean longer time to complete the application, and – it was argued – lead
to more successful project applications).
The employment of an EU coordinator in a municipality is another key event within an
institution. The decision to hire someone in such a position requires some form of active
choice, yet still constitutes a key event in setting up the path for more working hours on
EU coordination (e.g. increasing that portion of working hours or hiring more staff to work
on the issue). The samples show the importance of this, with for example Svalöv beginning
with a single staff member which developed into a three-man team, and Kristianstad
beginning with an internationalisation secretary and moving on to a full-time EU
coordinator. An EU coordinator is, in a sense, the epitome of the way EU funds and
funding programmes become integrated into the institution. Their work in turn influences
colleagues and other teams, destining the path.
6.1.3 Timing
Both timing and sequencing are important to consider here. As previously discussed, the
key event of employing a civil servant to work with some type of local EU coordination
illustrate the importance of timing. The early stages at which Vellinge and Svalöv began
having designated staff has arguably lead to more projects, compared with the “late” 2011
employment discussed in the findings.
The relatively early stage at which Svalöv was invited to partake in an INTERREG project
helped define their path also by early on showing the green leaves of EU funding and
project success (as deemed by INTERREG, leading Svalöv to be hailed as an example of
best practice).
It is also worth considering the programming period structure, when discussing timing. The
findings point to the disappointment of the institutions in how delayed the current
programming period is, and the dip in the volume of projects that this causes. Having
begun working with EU project funding applications at a point in the programming period
49
with frequent calls for applications can increase both the number of projects the
municipality takes part in, and the institution's overall experience of partaking. Compare
this to, for instance, a municipality employing an EU coordinator to work with EU projects
at a relative dry spell in the programming period, with few calls being published – and
thus, fewer opportunities for projects.
Another aspect of the programming periods is the difference between them. The findings
suggest that the complex end report and financial accounting can act as a deterrent for
organisations. Earlier programming periods required less detailed end reports, meaning an
earlier entry into EU funds and funding programmes can have given a more positive
imprint on the institution. Partly due to suspicion of fraudulent activities, the reporting of
finances have become more regulated, and to ensure impact and implementation of
projects the requirement for the end report communicating results have become more
stringent. These changes in bureaucracy can deter an institution, and lead it down another
path to earlier entrants.
The sequence of events places the timings into context, and is worth considering in its own
right. The development within an institution or municipality seems to follow a certain
sequence, to enable EU project funding applications. The education of the institution on
EU issues needs to be institutionalised, as some form of knowledge of the funds and
funding programmes is needed to enable ideas to become projects. This also relates to “fire
souls” or enthusiasts, which may have initiated early projects, and whose reasoning
becomes more and more engrained in the institution. This can also be seen in the early
focus of institutions on money, with the EU being considered a funding source, which
shifts over time to instead focus more on results and enriching the institutions (not just
financially). The deeper and larger projects require this sequence to develop.
An obvious sequence are the projects themselves, as some projects are literally pre-studies
or research projects, which are required to create the basis of bigger projects. You have to
start early to be able to participate later – true for many aspects of life.
The process of projectification of public authorities (and other organisations) is part of the
50
larger sequence of EU funds and funding programmes as a whole. It sets out conditions
which make these funds and programmes more important.
However, the findings also suggest it may be possible to skip ahead on a path by utilising
other organisations or knowledge sharing – assuming the paths are moving in the same
direction. For example, the different structures of staff which Svalöv have experimented
with can be shared through networks, much like past experiences of working with EU-
funded projects and writing project funding applications. Through this knowledge sharing,
institutions can perhaps skip certain sequences. The added legitimacy of an external
organisation, KFSK, carrying out an EPA is another example of this. The EPA can increase
the institutional awareness of EU funding opportunities, and be a form of external agent in
shaping or determining the path.
6.1.4 Positive feedback
Perhaps the most obvious positive feedback is the influx of cash into the municipality for
an EU-funded project. As the sequences show, smaller projects are usually followed by
larger ones, providing greater influx. The loop continues as new networks are created, with
more project invitations as a result. The path is continued, and becomes stickier.
Eventually, with time, the institutional focus may shift from finances to results and
implementation. If the results and implementation of a project are successful internally
(within the municipality), these could naturally be followed by more project. Projects
deemed successful, such as Svalöv by INTERREG, create both pride and prestige, and a
desire for further successes. Invitations to new project consortia – such as by former
partners or twinned towns – can also be linked to prestige and being important enough to
be 'personally' invited (as an institution or indeed as an individual if it is a personal
contact). Similarly, the prestige of national projects (such as through ESF) can lead to a
desire for the prestige of transnational projects, as the findings show a hierarchy of
different types of projects and funds and funding programmes.
The logic of history was utilised by the respondents to show how historical projects
considered successful mean that institutions were somehow 'right' in their projects. The
demand for innovation in order to secure EU funding is also highlighted by the findings.
51
This constant demand can be considered a form of positive feedback, as the innovation
must continue – rather than see the same projects repeated – in order to continue to obtain
funding and support. On the other hand, projects considered unsuccessful and “boring” or
with lots of bureaucracy, should under this reasoning act as negative feedback, or deterrent.
6.1.5 Cost of exit
The costs of leaving the path are not just financial, although the budgetary aspect of EU
funding should not be downplayed. Over time the EU project funding can become a natural
line in the municipal budget, and be expected, despite not being guaranteed for future
projects. The path has become institutionalised also financially. The findings suggest that
money is such a tangible result of these projects that it is what is valued by higher
management, who might not have time or knowledge of the other project results. However,
the cost of not applying for EU project funding also has a deeper financial meaning. My
research suggests an entitlement within institutions, that the EU project funding is the
return of the Swedish EU membership fee investment. It is considered theirs to claim,
theirs to recoup. A form of logic of investment seems to be at play, whereby not applying
for project funding renders the fee 'investment' a lack of return of the investment, or an
obvious loss.
Another aspect of financial costs is the employment of an EU coordinator (or similar),
where the further one has trotted on the path, the more difficult it becomes. Partly because
the person(s) would have to be fired, leave or reassigned tasks, which is a loss of the
investment of resources (including time). The job security, in terms of Swedish
employment legislation (in particular in the public sector), is also very strong, making it
difficult to fire or make someone redundant.
The cost of prestige in no longer participating in EU funded projects, or indeed reducing
the institution's participation, can also be a factor. While only one of the respondents link
Europeanness to their municipality, they refer to for example Hässleholm utilising this in
their profiling. Such municipalities more or less need EU-funded projects and collaboration
to maintain this status, and not lose prestige now that they are on this path.
An implied cost of exit lies in the lack of awareness of higher management and politicians
52
in municipalities. To even enable an exit, they would need to find out more and educate
themselves on the issue – to see if there are other branches (or paths) upon which to climb
and what these look like. Once on the path, overall passivity here can arguably lead the
institution and the organisation to continue following its path.
6.2 Europeanisation
Looking again at my definition of Europeanisation as “the emergence of new rules, norms,
practices, and structures of meaning to which member states are exposed and which they
have to incorporate into their domestic structures”146 (with new structures relating to the
EU), the analysis of the interviews shows it is not just the structure of EU funds and
funding programmes which has become incorporated and integrated into the domestic
structure of Swedish municipalities. The integration is noticeable in the employment of EU
coordinator, the opening of Brussels offices of for example SALAR and KFSK,147 the
creation of shared EU coordination offices, the emergence of networks of partners (past
and potential, and both), and so on.
However, the integration is also noticeable in the underlying reasoning and norms behind
claims in the respondents' argumentation. I would argue that their argumentation shows
that, to the respondents and arguably the institutions they are part of, diversity is something
positive and stereotypes should be dismantled, while a strength of EU-funded projects is
the external input and sharing of experiences. Through EU-funded projects, local
authorities can unite in their diversity – the funds and funding programmes acting as a
driver for change and development. Europeanisation appears to be taking place to some
extent, but without the discourse being explicitly made clear.
The underlying principles in the discourses also show the acceptance of the current system,
allowing it to become part of the institution, which can be considered an acceptance of the
path. The single equilibrium has been accepted. Rather than merely relying on the
enthusiastic “fire souls” to apply for EU project funding, a system and structure with some
form of strategy has been created.
146 Carlsnaes et al, Handbook of International Relation, 520.147 Another example is Malmö municipality which has its own Brussels office.
53
Although I focus here on top-down Europeanisation (in the central supranational
organisation of EU funds and funding programmes and acceptance of this structure), the
“fire souls” could be considered a form of grassroots-initiated Europeanisation, or bottom-
up. The “fire souls” in this instance are more likely to be some kind of civil servant (be it a
teacher in a school or an employee within social care) rather than citizens professionally
unaffiliated with the municipality. Nevertheless, I would argue that the “fire souls” alone
would not be able to instigate the integration without other processes such as
projectification and positive feedback. A form of horizontal Europeanisation might also be
taking place, on a larger scale than just the local authority itself, in the sharing of best
practice and experiences, and the lifting of the eyes form the duck pond, as one respondent
put it.
An interesting part of Europeanisation is the seemingly uncomplicated relationship the
respondents display towards the notions of Europe and the EU. Europe is a geographical
region, or at least nothing contentious. The EU is an accepted part of institutional (and
general working) life, not something to particularly strive towards. It seems the institutions
have adopted a pragmatic approach towards the EU, with the EU providing the pre-labelled
jar into which projects can be fitted. This might also be linked to Swedish specificity, in
that Sweden arguably has a relatively unproblematic relationship with the notions of EU
and Europe, as previously shown.
I would argue that the idea of the EU as a form of label is highly relevant here. The EU is a
packaging into which the institutions fit their own content. This can also be illustrated with
the EPA, taking municipal objectives and finding a way of fitting them into an EU frame
(to enable EU project funding). It seems institutions attempt to solve their own issues with
EU projects (and/or money). The EU, and Swedish EU membership, enables the project
funding.
The reasoning by all respondents that local authorities are entitled to recoup the money
paid into the EU through the Swedish membership fee showcases a form of nationalist
thinking. While none displayed any negative concerns about Sweden's status as a net
54
contributor to the EU – and one mentioned that the suggested Danish figure of recouping
70 per cent of their membership fee should be the goal – it still shows that while perhaps
united in diversity, the boundaries of the nation-state(s) very much remain.
Yet an important part of Europeanisation is in the mere fact that local authorities are
looking to the EU for funding, rather than for example their capital. While some funds are
managed on a regional or national level, many funding opportunities are applied for
straight from the supranational level. Local authorities have perhaps to some extent shifted
their allegiances, or at least their funding practices, to the EU.
6.4 Research evaluation
I have outlined the EU funds and funding programmes, and the structure of local
governance in Sweden, to provide background, whereafter I have discussed and defined
my use of path dependency, Europeanisation and rhetorical analysis. This research paper
rests on the writings and ideas within both path dependency and Europeanisation, and lies
in the interdisciplinary field of European studies, taking influence from sociology, political
science, sociological institutionalism, and historical institutionalism.
The research structure overall was suitable to the research questions, and it was possible to
largely answer the research questions. That said, the interpretative methods used do create
a fairly low replicability of my study, though the findings are nonetheless valid in this
field.
Interviews was the only feasible way of collecting sufficient data to eventually answer my
research questions. While the interviewees, especially with such close links to the
institutional logic, could be considered biased, rhetorical analysis did to some extent go
beyond the potential bias. The interviewees selected provided significant insights and the
interview transcripts ample empirical data to draw upon. I would also claim, based on the
interviews, that the interviewees were indeed also experts, as intended. The decision to
interview civil servants instead of for example politicians was important, as the civil
servants working on the project applications arguably have the greatest experience of EU
projects in their municipality, and insights into the process of EU funding applications
within their municipality.
55
Based on the data gathered from the three interviews, I would argue the saturation point
had been met with regard to the scope of my research. Naturally interviewing someone
from all 33 Skåne municipalities could have been interesting, or indeed all 290 Swedish
municipalities, and I cannot rule out that further insights would have been gained from
that. Taking into account the limited time and resources available, my previous
observations, but above all the research questions posed, I do not believe further interviews
would have brought significantly different perspectives to my study.
Rhetorical analysis was a useful tool in unlocking the argumentation and the underlying
reasonings in the argumentation of the interviewees. Thematic analysis, for example, may
have proved too blunt of a tool for my research objectives. If I had utilised Europeanisation
as a main theory, I also think a method like critical discourse analysis could have been
suitable. However, the low replicability would most likely have remained. Rhetorical
analysis leaves much interpretation in the hands of the researcher, which can be a
weakness.
I decided to use Europeanisation as context rather than main theoretical framework, which
I would argue opened up for more innovative thinking around the research questions, while
still being vital to contextualise my findings and analysis. Path dependency is perhaps
more common in other fields such as economics, but certainly provided an interesting
framework for analysing the developments in local authorities. Arguably, path dependency
enabled me to answer also the first research question of what motivates local authorities to
apply for EU project funding, and also enabling me to unlock patterns and sequences
which may otherwise not surface.
My research opens up for many interesting ways of developing on and expanding this
study. The extensive questionnaire I designed could even be utilised for this purpose. It
could be relevant to interview a wider sample of municipalities across a wider
geographical area – including different member states and regions. Even within the vast
regions of Sweden a wider study across municipalities in multiple Swedish regions could
be rewarding. Has varying regional history, economics or culture created differences in the
56
motives for local authorities to apply for EU funding? Does proximity to other member
states influence this? If so, are local authorities near fellow EU member states (for example
Denmark, Finland in contrast to non-member Norway) more or less likely to apply for EU
funding?
A longitudinal study could also focus on how the expressed motivation of local decision-
makers at the application stage compare with their perceptions of the motivation further
along in the project – and whether the motivating factors were realised for the municipality
and decision-makers. It could also be beneficial to explore what deters organisations –
perhaps not only local authorities – from applying for EU project funding. This could
potentially further contextualise the structural funds and disparate regional development
between regions and member states.
Although I believe my reasons for including both the funds and funding programmes in my
research were valid, in hindsight, limiting my study to a specific type of funding or
programme would make it fit better into a field of research. Focusing, for example, on the
structural funds would have enabled me to more easily draw on governance theories and
discuss wider issues such as democratic legitimacy of the EU-funded projects.148
148 In particular given that for example Bache and Olsson have shown that elected politicians often have limited involvement in these types of projects.
57
7. Conclusions
This paper aimed to explore what motivates local authorities to apply for EU project
funding. While a simple answer could be money – the opportunity to increase the
municipal budget – this study has shown that the motivations are far more multifaceted and
run considerably deeper than this. By analysing the rhetoric and argumentation used by
civil servants working on such funding applications in a sample of Swedish municipalities
from the region of Skåne, I unveiled the institutional logic and reasoning behind the
applications. Using theories of path dependency and contextualising this in the process of
Europeanisation, I showed that the applications for EU project funding by local authorities
are path dependent. Both Europeanisation and the ongoing projectification (of, in
particular, public authorities) are also relevant here. So what motivates a local authority to
apply for EU project funding?
While particular projects have some project-specific motives (leading the municipality to
participate in that particular call for applications), important overarching motives appeared.
Applying for EU project funding is now habitual to the institution, driven not just by
individual projects and their supposed aims, but by Europeanisation and continuing on the
path. Local authorities apply for EU project funding because their previous experiences
have been positive, and they wish to increase these returns. The positive feedback of
networks, prestige, funding, and results exasperate this. The potential costs of exiting or
changing paths are both financial (including loss of resources) and prestige-related. There
is also a logic of investment at play, whereby institutions wish to recoup the money paid in
to the EU through Sweden's EU membership fee. Not applying for EU project funding
would render the 'investment' a loss or a cost.
Placed into the context of Europeanisation and projectification, further nuances appear. I
would argue that the structure of the EU funds and funding programmes means that to
remain competitive and successful, the local authorities must strive towards the same
equilibrium – or path with a shared supposed destination. Although additionality means the
EU funding should not replace public funding, it is still a significant budgetary
contribution (in particular in areas of development and innovation, as previously shown).
58
The process of projectification has increased the importance of EU project funding,
making projects a more common form of organising work, and increasing competition for
public funding also between projects. “Owing to the fact that a Europe of regions will be a
competitive system, there will be both losers and winners.”149 Those left behind, for
instance by not applying for EU project funding, are in a sense on a branch gradually
wilting away.150 I would argue that their path will not reach particularly far.
An aim with the structural funds, for example, is to even out regional differences between
and within member states, yet how can a more even EU be created through competition?
For example, “from an EU point of view it is evident that the structural funds system
carries an inherent risk of causing fragmentation and considerable variations in procedures
and outcomes at regional and local levels.”151 This competition is not merely between
member states. The partner consortia – particularly in the case of transnational projects –
and networks mean this competition is often between regions or local areas (or authorities)
on competing projects. At the same time, this could be seen as a form of horizontal
Europeanisation – a way of experimenting together to find a new shared European way.
Not just by sharing best practice, but also by conjuring new concepts and ideas, as “it is
often with the support of EU funds that experimentation could get off the ground.”152
Yet my findings show that the projects are initiated or participated in largely to solve local
problems, with the EU being considered a possibility for funding or shifting the projects to
a higher gear,153 rather than an aspect of the content. I would argue that, in this sense, the
EU sets out an empty jar of certain dimensions and with a pre-affixed 'EU' label, but leaves
it up to the applying institutions to fill it with content. As Sassatelli put it, “Europe
provides legitimacy and funds, but stays, thematically, in the background.”154
Although the mere fact that local authorities are looking towards the EU, and not for
instance only the national level, for funding is noteworthy in itself. Europeanisation
appears to be present both in the integration of the new EU funding structures and (mostly
149 Paasi, “Regions and Regional Dynamics,” 476-7.150 Cf. Levi in Pollack, “The New Institutionalisms and European Integration.”151 Godenhjelm et al, “Projectification in the public sector – the case of the European Union,” 337.152 Sassatelli, Becoming Europeans – Cultural Identity and Cultural Policies, 175.153 “växla upp,” Svalöv interview.154 Sassatelli, Becoming Europeans – Cultural Identity and Cultural Policies, 175.
59
project-based) procedures of working. Many local authorities – particularly in Sweden, as
my research has shown – have adapted to the 'new' competitive project funding system,
integrating it into their institutions as part of top-down Europeanisation.
Another aspect of this is the underlying principles of institutions wishing to break down
stereotypes and broaden their horizons, as previously discussed. This is not just a logic of
consequences or desire to maximise institutional gain, but rather a logic of appropriateness,
with institutions wishing to act in socially appropriate ways.
While elements of Europeanisation are evident in my findings, this research paper has
shown that path dependence is even more vital in driving local authorities to apply for EU
project funding (and continue to do). Project-specific motives are minor, as all EU project
funding applications rely on the institutional path. Projectification is part of the path and
part of the Europeanisation and institutionalising of the EU structure of funds and funding
programmes. The path dependence at play in municipalities illustrates why local
authorities do apply for project funding, but also has implications for why local authorities
do not. These research findings are particularly important as the EU uses project funding to
implement policies and tackle specific issues,155 yet the local institutional conditions and
path must be taken heavily into account.
155 Cf. for example the approach of the European Commission to the integration of Roma minorities. See “EU and Roma,” European Commission, last modified 9 December 2014, accessed 10 May 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/index_en.htm.
60
8. Bibliography
Allen, David. “The Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy: Extending the Bargain to Meet
New Challenges.” In Policy-Making in the European Union, edited by Helen Wallace,
Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, 229-252. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010.
Bache, Ian. Europeanization and Multilevel Governance: Cohesion Policy in the European
Union and Britain. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008.
Bache, Ian. “Multi-level Governance and European Union Regional Policy.” In Multi-level
Governance, edited by Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders, 165-178. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Bache, Ian, and Matthew Flinders. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004.
Bache, Ian, Simon Bulmer and Defne Gunay. “Europeanization: A Critical Realist
Perspective.” In Research Design in European Studies – Establishing Causality in
Europeanization, edited by Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio M. Radaelli, 64-84.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Bache, Ian, and Rachael Chapman. “Democracy through Multilevel Governance? The
Implementation of the Structural Funds in South Yorkshire.” Governance: An
International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21/3 (2008): 397-
418.
Bogner, Alexander, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz. Interviewing Experts. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Bomberg, Elizabeth, John Peterson, and Richard Corbett, eds. The European Union: How
does it work?. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A Simmons. Handbook of International
Relations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2012.
Cleland, David, and Lewis Ireland. Project Management: strategic design and
implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Coman, Ramona, Thomas Kostera, and Luca Tomini. Europeanization and European
Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Diez, Thomas, and Antje Wiener. "Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory." In
European Integration Theory, edited by Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez, 1-22.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. “About EACEA.” Accessed 14
61
April 2015. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/about-eacea_en.
EU-upplysningen. “Sveriges EU-avgift.” Last modified 30 October 2014. Accessed 14
April 2015. http://www.eu-upplysningen.se/Sverige-i-EU/Sveriges-EU-avgift.
European Commission. “Available budget 2014-2020.” Accessed 23 March 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/available-budget.
European Commission. “Cohesion Fund.” Accessed 23 March 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund.
European Commission. “EU and Roma.” Last modified 9 December 2014. Accessed 10
May 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/index_en.htm.
European Commission. “EU funding.” Accessed 23 March 2015. http://europa.eu/about-
eu/funding-grants/index_en.htm.
European Commission. “Kontaktpunkter i Sverige.” Accessed 23 March 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/sweden/services/contact-points/index_sv.htm.
European Commission. “Structure of the EU budget.” Last modified 5 March 2015.
Accessed 23 March 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/structure/struct_en.cfm.
Eurostat. “History of NUTS.” Accessed 14 April 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/history.
Eurostat. “Local Administrative Units (LAU).” Accessed 14 April 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/local-administrative-units.
Forssell, Rebecka, Mats Fred, and Patrik Hall. “Projekt som det politiska
samverkanskravets uppsamlingsplatser: en studie av Malmö stads
projektverksamheter.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 17 (2013): 37-
59.
Godenhjelm, Sebastian, Rolf A. Lundin, and Stefan Sjöblom. “Projectification in the public
sector – the case of the European Union.” International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business 8/2 (2015): 324-348.
Gray, Paul S., John B. Williamson, David A. Karp, and John R. Dalphin. The Research
Imagination An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Kern, Kristine. "When Europe Hits City Hall: The Europeanization of Cities in the EU
Multi-level System." (2007): Archive of European Integration, EBSCOhost. Accessed
62
29 April 2015.
Laffan, Brigid, and Johannes Lindner. “The Budget: Who Gets What, When and How?” In
Policy-Making in the European Union, edited by Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and
Alasdair R. Young, 207-227. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Leach, Joan. "Rhetorical Analysis." In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and
Sound, edited by Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, 208-27. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd., 2000.
McLean, Iain, and Alistair McMillan. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.
Official Journal of the European Union, “Commission Implementing Decision.” Accessed
23 March 2015. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:32014D0099&from=EN.
Paasi, Anssi. "Regions and Regional Dynamics." In The Sage Handbook of European
Studies, edited by Chris Rumford, 464-485. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009.
Pierson, Paul. “The Path to European Integration – A Historical Institutionalist Analysis.”
Comparative Political Studies 29/2 (1996): 123-163.
Pierson, Paul. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American
Political Science Review 94/2 (2000): 251-267.
Pollack, Mark A. “The New Institutionalisms and European Integration.” In European
Integration Theory, edited by Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez, 125-143. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.
Radaelli, Claudio, and Sabine Saurugger. “Foreword.” In Europeanization and European
Integration, edited by Ramona Coman, Thomas Kostera and Luca Tomini.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Roederer-Rynning, Christilla. “The Common Agricultural Policy: The Fortress
Challenged.” In Policy-Making in the European Union, edited by Helen Wallace,
Mark A. Pollack, and Alasdair R. Young, 181-206. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010.
Rumford, Chris. The Sage Handbook of European Studies. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd., 2008.
Sassatelli, Monica. Becoming European – Cultural Identity and Cultural Policies.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Skåne Association of Local Authorities, “Brysselkontoret.” Last modified 14 January 2015.
63
Accessed 23 March 2015. http://kfsk.se/ledningochutveckling/eu-och-
brysselkontoret/brysselkontoret.
Skåne Association of Local Authorities. “Brysselnätverket.” Last modified 8 April 2015.
Accessed 20 April 2015. http://kfsk.se/ledningochutveckling/eu-och-
brysselkontoret/brysselkontoret/brysselnatverket.
Statistics Sweden. “EU preferences in Sweden 1996-2014.” Last modified 10 December
2014. Accessed 21 April 2015. http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Statistics-by-
subject-area/Democracy/Political-party-preferences/Party-Preference-Survey-
PSU/Aktuell-Pong/12443/EU-Euro-Preferences/27403.
Statham, Paul. “Forging Divergent and 'Path Dependent' Ways to Europe?: Political
Communication over European Integration in the British and French Public Spheres.”
European Political Communication 11/05 (2005).
Sveriges riksdag. “Kommunallag (1991:900).” Accessed 14 April 2015.
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-
Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Kommunallag-1991900_sfs-1991-900.
Swedish Arts Council. “Creative Europe Desk Sweden – A Presentation.” Accessed 23
March 2015. http://www.kulturradet.se/sv/EU_Kulturprogram/English.
Swedish Arts Council. “International activities.” Accessed 23 March 2015.
http://www.kulturradet.se/en/In-English/International-activities.
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, EU in local politics – a study of
agendas from municipalities, county councils and regions, Stockholm: Swedish
Association of Local Authorities, 2010.
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. “Kommuner och landsting.”
Accessed 14 April 2015. http://skl.se/tjanster/kommunerlandsting.431.html.
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. “Kommunernas åtaganden.”
Accessed 14 April 2015.
http://skl.se/tjanster/kommunerlandsting/faktakommunerochlandsting/kommunernasat
aganden.3683.html.
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. “The office in Brussels.” Accessed
10 May 2015.
http://skl.se/tjanster/englishpages/aboutsalar/theofficeinbrussels.1141.html.
Valmyndigheten. “Folkomröstning 14 september 2003 om införande av euron.” Accessed
14 April 2015. http://www.val.se/val/emu2003/resultat/slutresultat/index.html.
64
Valmyndigheten. “Nationella folkomröstningar.” Accessed 14 April 2015.
http://www.val.se/det_svenska_valsystemet/folkomrostningar/nationella/index.html.
Wiener, Antje, and Thomas Diez, eds. European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
Young, Alasdair R. “The European Policy Process in Comparative Perspective.” In Policy-
Making in the European Union, edited by Helen Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, and
Alasdair R. Young, 45-68. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
65
Appendix I – List of abbreviationsCAP – Common Agricultural Policy
CEF – Connecting Europe Facility
CF – Cohesion Fund
DG - directorate-general
EACEA – Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
EAFRD – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EaSI - EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation
ECOC – European City of Culture
EMFF – European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EPA – EU project analysis156
ERDF – European Regional Development Fund
ESF – European Social Fund
EU – European Union
KFSK – Skåne Association of Local Authorities157
LAU – Local Administrative Units
NUTS – Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
SALAR – Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions158
156 See 2.1.3.157 Official abbreviation is based on the organisation's Swedish name: Kommunförbundet Skåne.158 I use the official English name and abbreviation. In Swedish the organisation is known as Sveriges
Kommuner och Landsting, abbreviated to SKL.
66
Appendix II – Interview questionnaire (Swedish original)
Sample questionnaire I used for the interviews. 'X' was replaced with the name of the
municipality where the interviewee was employed at the time of the interview. See
Appendix III for an English translation of the questionnaire.
INLEDNING
Presenterar mig själv och en kort sammanfattning av mitt uppsatsämne. Frågar om
diktafon.
PROFESSIONELL ROLL / ANSTÄLLNING
1. Vad är dina huvudsakliga arbetsuppgifter i din roll hos X kommun?
2. När påbörjade du din nuvarande anställning hos X kommun?
3. Hur relaterar ditt arbete till EU:s fonder och program?
4. Finns det en bestämd del av din arbetstid som är öronmärkt för att arbeta med EU-
projekt? (Om ja, hur många timmar/vilken procentsats av arbetstiden?)
KOMMUNEN
5. Hur länge har X kommun anställt någon att arbeta med EU:s fonder och program?
6. Vem initierar EU-projekt inom X kommun?
7. Vem koordinerar EU-projekt i X kommun?
8. Varför är X kommun med i EU-projekt?
PROCESS / UTVECKLING
9. Kan du berätta om det första EU-projektet som X kommun var partner i? (Om du
inte känner till det första projektet, berätta om det tidigaste som du känner till.)
10. Kan du berätta om det senaste EU-projektet som X kommun var partner i?
(Pågående eller avslutat.)
11. Gällande perioden mellan det första och senaste EU-projektet du berättade om: hur
har kommunens arbete med EU-projekt förändrats, om överhuvudtaget?
12. Gällande perioden mellan det första och senaste EU-projektet du berättade om: har
X kommun blivit mer eller mindre benägen att ansöka om EU-finansiering till
67
projekt?
13. Gällande perioden mellan det första och senaste EU-projektet du berättade om:
anser du att EU-projekt blivit mer eller mindre viktiga för X kommun?
14. Om vi jämför programperioden 2007-2013 med den pågående programperioden
2014-2020, tror du att X kommun kommer att gå med i färre, lika många, eller fler
EU-projekt under den pågående perioden som under den förra programperioden?
STRATEGI
15. Är arbetet med EU-projekt förankrat i någon strategi inom X kommun?
16. Har en EU-projektanalys genomförts i X kommun? (Den EU-projektanalys som
Kommunförbundet Skåne utför.)
17. Vilka för- och nackdelar ser du med att en kommun ansöker om EU-
projektfinansiering?
EUROPEISERING
18. Hur definierar du ordet ”europeisk”?
19. Skulle du beskriva dig själv som europeisk?
20. Skulle du beskriva X kommun som europeisk?
21. Gällande perioden mellan kommunens första och senaste EU-projekt: tycker du att
X kommun har blivit mer eller mindre europeisk?
22. Övrigt: är det något du önskar att tillägga eller förtydliga?
68
Appendix III – Interview questionnaire (English
translation)
English translation of the Swedish original sample questionnaire I used for the interviews.
'X' was replaced with the name of the municipality where the interviewee was employed at
the time of the interview. This translation is provided for the reader's context only, and was
not used in the research process as both the interviews and the analysis were carried out in
Swedish.
INTRODUCTION
Introducing myself and a brief summary of my research topic. Asking about use of
dictaphone.
PROFESSIONAL ROLE / EMPLOYMENT
1. What are your main work tasks in your role with X municipality?
2. When did you begin your current employment with X municipality?
3. How does your work relate to the EU's funds and programmes?
4. Has a set portion of your working hours been earmarked for working with the EU
projects? (If yes, how many hours/what percentage of working hours?)
MUNICIPALITY
5. How long has X municipality employed someone to work with the EU's funds and
programmes?
6. Who initiates EU projects within X municipality?
7. Who coordinates EU projects within X municipality?
8. Why does X municipality take part in EU projects?
PROCESS / DEVELOPMENT
9. Could you tell me about the first EU project that X municipality was a partner of?
(If you are not familiar with the first project, tell me about the earliest one you
know of.)
10. Could you tell me about the latest EU project that X municipality was a partner of?
69
(Ongoing or completed.)
11. Regarding the period between the earliest and latest EU projects you told me about:
how has the way the municipality works with EU projects changed, if at all?
12. Regarding the period between the earliest and latest EU projects you told me about:
has X municipality become more or less likely to apply for EU project funding?
13. Regarding the period between the earliest and latest EU projects you told me about:
do you consider EU projects to have become more or less important for X
municipality?
14. If we compare the programming period 2007-2013 with the ongoing programming
period 2014-2020, do you think X municipality will take part in fewer, the same or
more EU projects during the ongoing programming period than during the previous
programming period?
STRATEGY
15. Is the working with EU projects rooted in any strategy within X municipality?
16. Has an EU project analysis been carried out in X municipality? (The EU project
analysis carried out by the Skåne Association of Local Authorities.)
17. Which advantages and disadvantages do you see for a municipality applying for EU
project funding?
EUROPEANISATION
18. How do you define the word “European”?
19. Would you describe yourself as European?
20. Would you describe X municipality as European?
21. Regarding the period between the earliest and latest EU projects you told me about:
do you think X municipality has become more or less European?
22. Miscellaneous: is there anything you wish to add or clarify?
70
Appendix IV – List of interviews
As part of my research I carried out interviews with the following. For more details on the
interviews, see Chapter 4.
● Nils-Arvid Andersson, turism- och näringslivschef (tourism and business manager),
Vellinge
● Thomas Arnström, strategisk utvecklare (strategic developer), Svalöv
● Kristina Prahl, EU-samordnare (EU coordinator), Kristianstad
71
Appendix V – Note on interview transcripts
The interview transcripts are available on request. The transcripts are in the original
language (Swedish). As the analysis of the collected data took place in the original
language, only the passages quoted within this research paper have been translated into
English and are available as such.
72
Related Documents
