The International Conference on Economics and Administration, Faculty of Business

and Administration, University of Bucharest, Romania

ICEA FAA Bucharest, 4-5th June 2010
THEORETICAL APPROACHES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM OF EUROPEAN
COHESION POLICY
Alina BOUROSU 1;
PHD candidate National School of Political Science;
Bourosu_alina@yahoo.com

1
Beneficiary of the project Doctoral scholarships supporting research: Competitiveness, quality, and cooperation in the
European Higher Education Area, co-funded by the European Union through the European Social Fund, Sectorial Operational
Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013

Abstract
This paper is considered to be at the intersection
of several studying fields, emphasizing on the
intersection between public policy cycle, new
institutionalism theories and new public
management. Structural funds can be considered
the link between the practice of new governance
theory, economical convergence and divergence
theories, governing the commons and principalagent theory. What may seem to have in common
all these theoretical perspectives is the
governance concept considered from the point of
view of a common pool resource, of an
implementation system model of check and
balances, of a macro-economical analysis of the
governing process results, of a certain way of
rethinking public management and evolution
cycle of public policies. In front of this complexity
of research I will draw up the guidance lines of
the analysis, specifying the theoretical principles
that govern the European cohesion policy taking
into account the theoretical perspectives
mentioned above, shaping the implementation
system of structural funds.
Key
words:
cohesion,
structural
funds,
implementation system, new principal agent
theory
1. Introduction
The field of European Cohesion 2 Policy
implementation has known various theoretical
approaches, ranging from early ones concerned
with the evolution of cohesion policies reforms
right up to the contemporary analysis of what
changes spurred in the public management theory
or in the public policies` implementation systems.

structural funds. Using mathematical models, the

descriptive elements of the structural funds
implementation systems were intersected with the
economic approach on funds allocation efficiency and
the use of the allocated funds, in an attempt to prove
the probability for convergence/ divergence of the
financial interventions.
Defined as the most influential approach in studying
the role that regions and the European Cohesion
Policy play in the EU 3, the multilevel governance 4 is
described as a continuous negotiation system
involving the local, regional, national and
supranational governing bodies, being considered the
main core of this policy. Another approach on
governance is linked to the diffusion of the decisional
layer to the informal level, respectively to the level of
actors` networks. Moreover, the decision making
process is seen as being interconnected with all the
levels of the system, with the sub-national actors
acting both at national and supranational level.
One of the criticisms 5 on this approach of the
European Cohesion Policys implementation system
talks about the fact that the multilevel governance
model fails to explain why national actors lose their
influence in the decision making process. Jens BlomHansen finds that in this particular perspective, there
is an unexplained assumption that the governance
networks involved in system control somehow the
European Cohesion Policy. To put it in other words, if
national or sub-national actors which implement the
European Cohesion Policy can also influence the
content of the European Cohesion Policy, one might
say that the policy control mechanisms are weak at
the European level. The European Cohesion Policy is
a hardly manageable colossus and there is a need for
the intersection and synchronization of actions across
all levels.

As the European Cohesion Policy consolidated its

role, the structural funds implementation systems
became more and more sophisticated and
integrated and ever more decentralized. The idea
of partnership and the involvement of the private
and non-governmental sector were the key
elements in the evolution of implementing the

2. European Cohesion Policy Institutional

Management Systems Reform

2
Cohesion is a concept vague defined in the fields literature, assuming
different inequalities between living standards, venues, resources access,
opportunities, etc. Economical/social convergence is a long term process
which reflects the ability of a economical or social group to be in
competition. In the European context, near this sense of the concept, we
can talk about the disparate distribution of resources/benefices of
European integration in order to reduce the economical/social disparities
between European regions to create a competitive background. The
instruments to create this environment are considered to be these
structural funds and the models of their implementation systems.

3
Rumford, Cris,The European Union. A Political Sociology, Blackwell
Publishing, 2002, pg. 154.
4
Concept set forward by Gary Marks in order to show how the EU is shifting
to a decision making system in which the power is split between multiple
levels of governance: sub-national, national and supranational. Multiple
actors with authority collaborate in a framework where the power is
dissipated. Hooghe, Liesbet i Marks, Gary, Unraveling the Central State, but
How? Types of Multi-Level Governance, The American Political Science
Review, Vol. 97, Nr. 2, Mai, 2003.
5
Blom-Hansen, Jens Principals, agents, and the implementation of EU
cohesion policy, Journal of European Public Policy 12:4, 2005.

Where the social and economical system fails in

bringing the attended results, a series of interventions
as public policies are needed to enrich the system
efficiency and to create the minimal conditions for the

system functioning. To ensure a macro-economical

stability of common market, to create the
Economical and Monetary Union a cohesion policy
was created, having as key elements the efficiency
of financial distribution from the developed
countries to those less developed, ensuring the
functioning stability for the common market and
promoting a harmonious development of the
European Union. European Cohesion Policy is a
mix of financial instruments used for certain
policy objectives and rules to oblige social and
economical actors to have certain actions relevant
for the policys objective 6.
The evolution and consolidation process of this
policy is related the process of European
integration of new member states, the first
creating the premises of the second process,
especial taking into consideration the territorial
dimension of the European integration. The
consolidation process is related to multiplication
of financial instruments, to augmenting their
value,
to
defining
and
developing
the
implementation system in corroboration with the
simplification and concentration of the proposed
objectives.
The core principle of the evolution of European
Cohesion policys implementation system is
related to sub-national actors being sometimes as
important as central governments of memberstates in the elaboration and implementation
process of European public policies. 7 Taking all
that into account, the following reforms of
European Cohesion Policy shaped the system not
only by new geographical criteria but also by
functional criteria related to structural fund
management,
applying
principles
as
decentralization and subsidiarity at the level of
management
structures
and
financial
instruments.
Besides the principle related to the funds`
concentration in different priority objectives,
David Allen identifies another four elements
which act as milestones for the implementation
system of European Cohesion Policy:
1) Programming in a multi-annual and
multi-regional
perspective
of
interventions, in order to guarantee
stability and impact of programmes.

Molle, W., European Cohesion Policy, Routledge, 2007

Sutcliffe, John B. The 1999 Reform of the Structural Fund
Regulations: Multi-level Governance or Renationalization?, Journal of
European Public Policy, Vol. 7, 2000, pg. 292.
7

2) Additionality that gives the opportunity for

each beneficiary (member-state) to add its
national co-financing from the national
budget.
3) Partnership at national, regional and local
level in order to implement these multiannual programmes. This principle was
extended with the 1988 reform by including
social partners in different stages of the
implementing
process
of
operational
programmes.
Partnership
principle
encourages cooperation mechanisms between
social actors in implementing public policies.
In this way, the accent can be on decision
making transparency, on the justification and
legitimacy of governmental interventions.
4) Subsidiarity 8 -the problems are solved at the
sub-system level that these problems appear.
The intervention should be made when it is
necessary; the sub-systems are being
encouraged to deal with their own problems
without appeal to the superior level.
All these elements have been consolidated during the
reforms
of
European
Cohesion
Policys
implementation system, observing an evolution from a
policy based on national strategies to European
strategic policy 9. Gian Paolo Manzella and Carlos
Mendez talk about a step by step evolution from
financial supporting assistance on different projects to
multi-annual financial programming and integrated
programmes, evolution that took place since 1988.
Also we have to mention that the programming
responsibility of the last two implementing periods
was established at the member-states level. The
simplification of the management system is also
related to the integration of communitarian initiatives
in the programming period 2007-2013 and to the
elimination of innovative actions instruments.
Analysing
these
successive
reforms,
the
implementation systems of structural funds became
more and more sophisticated and integrated and the
partnership concept became the most important
element that marked the evolution of the system. As
it is shown in the paper Turning strategies into
projects: The implementation of 2007-2013 structural
regarding
the
last
funds
programmes 10,
8

Allen, D. (2000) Cohesion and Structural Funds: Transfers and Trade-offs, in

Wallace, H. &Wallace, W. (eds.) Elaborarea Politicilor n Uniunea
European, IER 2005
9
Manzella, G.P.; Mendez, C., The turning points of EU Cohesion policy,
Report
Working
Paper,
January.
2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/pdf/8_manzella_finalformatted.pdf
10
Ferry, M.; Gross, F.; Bachtler, J.; McMaster, I., Turning strategies into
projects: The implementation of 2007-2013 structural funds programmes,
European Policies Research Center, 2007-www.eprc.strath. ac.uk

programming period of implementation systems

we can talk about an evolution of Monitoring
Committees` responsibilities through control and
project evaluation integrated systems, about a
higher trend participation of economical and
social partners in programmes implementation,
about an horizontal and vertical consolidation of
partnership principle. The last two elements are
related especially to Lisbon Agenda, which
promotes an active implication of partners, not
only
on
advisory
bodies
but
also
in
implementation process itself.
In the article Reforming the implementation of
European Structural Funds - A next development
step, authors develop models for the successive
reforms of implementation systems of structural
funds, taking into a consideration the evolution
through
a
model
of
administrative
decentralization and strategic management. The
models are being classified according ro the
following
dimensions:
programming
and
management, implementation structure, regional
inclusion, improvement and evolution of
implementation mechanisms. Reforms have been
balancing between these models. New challenges
of public management in the field are being
related to the strategic partnership development,
to new investment instruments in human
resources, to simplify the system and to ensure
clear delegated tasks for intermediate bodies in
the decentralization process, efficient monitoring
and evaluation schemes. As Hooghe and Keaning`
perspective in applying structural funds is
necessary the mobilizing sub-national actors and
well as private actors for the scope of improving
governing capacity on the entire system. 11
Tabel 1: Models of the evolution of
structural funds implementation systems
(Jochen Lang)
Impleme
ntation
model

Bureaucr
atic
model of
control

Administra
tive
decentraliz
ation

Managem
ent
and
program
ming
model

Announced
detailed
objectives;

Announced
detailed
objectives
and
indicators;

Strategic
managem
ent
and
decentral
ization
Agreement
on
quantifyin
g the main
objectives

11
Hooghe, L, Keaning, M, The politics of European Union Regional
Policy, Journal of European Public Policy,1994, apud Wallace, H.,
Wallace, W., Pollack, M., Elaborarea Politicilor n Uniunea
European, IER 2005

Impleme
ntation
structure

Mix
implement
ation
process;

Administrati
ve
decentralizat
ion
of
decision
making but
maintenance
of
central
approval;

Social
inclusion

Insignifica
nt regional
participati
on;

Accent is on
the
information
and
participation
process
of
societal
actors (subregional and
social
partners)
Systematic
monitoring,
evaluation,
control and
financial
measures;

Continuu
m decision
making
process is
oriented
through
system
monitoring
and
evaluation
including
transnational
strategic
evaluation
and
through
financial
control;
Lang J.; Naschold, F.; Reissert, B. Reforming the
implementation of European Structural Funds A next
development step Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fr
Sozialforschung gGmbH (WZB) Reichpietschufer 50,
10785 Berlin
Improvin
g
and
evolution
of
implemen
tation
mechanis
ms

Lack
of
coordinatio
n
of
evaluation,
monitoring
and
financial
control
measures;

and
indicators;
Programm
ing
decentraliz
ation and
implement
ation the
coaching
and
stimulatin
g role of
the
European
Commissio
n;
Improvem
ent
and
expansion
of
the
regional
dimension
(local
institution
s, societal
actors);

Institutional
reform
of
structural
funds
implementation system has been accompanied by a
functional reform of evaluation and monitoring
process of the system. The reform was unstructured at
the beginning and progressively at European level

there was established different (relevance needs

associated with the programme/project priorities,
efficiency - obtained results associated with costs
for reaching those results, efficacy - fulfilling the
objectives of operational programmes, utility
response to economical and social need and the
improving the life quality by those financial
interventions, and sustainability the possibility
to sustain those interventions after exhausting
the financial aid 12).
3. General elements of European Cohesion
Policy management system for 2007 2013 13
There is no successful policy with one-size-fits-all
solutions. Cohesion Policy promotes flexibility
that allows each region and city to design and
implement its own strategy 14.
Implementation practice of European Cohesion
Policy proves the interaction between three levels:
regional, national, and European authorities.
European Commission proposes a budget and a
series of rules for a programming period of 7 years
on which the Council and European Parliament
are supposed to give an opinion and to adopt this
budget. After this procedure, the budget of
European Cohesion Policy is spitted between
member-states after member-states negotiations
and consultations on eligible regions, on
distribution criteria, on objectives, etc. As I
already mentioned, the implementation system of
structural funds is based on a series of compulsory
rules imposed by the EU regulations and
informative documents, following the entire cycle
of a programmes implementation, starting from
the programming phase, including identifying
problems, finding solutions, financing agreements,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation and
control procedures.
The main elements in implementing this policy
are:

12
Guidelines for the ex post evaluation of objective 5 B programmes
1994-1999
programming
period,
European
Commision,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/ben.pdf
13
Bourosu, Alina, section from the article Fondurile Structurale.
Probleme, soluii i perspective pentru Romnia. in volumul
Evaluare de programme i politici publice, cood. Mirela Cerkez,
Polirom, Collegium, 2009
14
Opening statement of Commissioner Danuta Hubner at conference
Success Story of the EU Cohesion Policy and problems in practice,
may 2007 aped. Ferry, M.; Gross, F., Bachtler, J. , McMaster, I.,
Turning strategies into projects: The implementation of 2007-2013
structural funds programmes, European Policies Research Center,
2007, www.eprc.strath. ac.uk

Legislative background at European level

(e.g. Regulation for putting into practice the
European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) or European Social Fund (ESF), at
national level (normative background to
implement structural funds in a certain
member-state);
Institutional background at European and
national and regional level;
Financial instruments and Cohesion Fund;
National strategies for identifying the main
priorities
regarding
structural
funds
concentration;
Operational programmes which are the
means used for funds allocation at the
national level;
Evaluation
and
control
mechanisms
(Monitoring Committees - MC Audit
Authorities - AA, Certifying and Paying
Authority - CPA, European Commission EC).

This general framework of implementing the

European Cohesion Policy is interweaving with a
series of principles and rules to ensure structural fund
managements transparency and efficiency. Besides
regulations and financial instruments established at
European level, the rest of the implementation system
follows each member-states institutional and
legislative specificity. Taking all this into
consideration, it might result a lot of differences in
the structural funds implementation system,
especially at national and regional levels, differences
that are the result of civic and political culture of each
country. Even though all member-states use the same
legislative background, there are differences
regarding the level of decentralization of the system.
For instance in Hungary, we can talk about one
operational programme for each development region
financed by ERDF and coordinated at the
governmental level, while in Romania there is only
one operational programme implemented from the
national level with some decentralized tasks
delegated to intermediate bodies (IB). Even though
there are these delegated activities to IBs, the level of
decentralization is not the same as in Hungary. This
element is also reflected in the competences`
distribution in programme management at the local,
regional, national level, in political interests, in the
number and purposes of the operational programmes,
in the existing administrative structures and their
organization - partnership structures, governmental
agencies. One of the main characteristics in the
European Cohesion Policys implementation system is
relate to the actions` stratification in the decision
making process. In this way, we can talk about the
three levels mentioned above (European, national and

sub-national or regional level) which are

intersecting by the partnership principle, lobby
and advocacy actions. There is a certain
complexity of the system given by these
communicative levels but at the same time we can
also identify some flexibility by the equilibration
of private - public relation in the attempt to
involve actors in the implementation process.
Another dimension that we can discuss regarding
structural funds implementation system at
member- states level is the dynamics of social
problems that these funds should be the solution.
Each country builds its own development strategy
taking into account its lean sectors, its resources
and its potential in a certain domains. In
different countries, actions are concentrated to the
development of certain economic activities, taking
into consideration the socio-economical and zone
realities. Besides this, institution building process
has its own voice in personalizing the structural
funds implementation system in a country. All
these elements are detailed in the next figure:
Fig. 1 - Implementation system of
structural funds 15
European
implementation
model

Actors
European
Commission
National
Governments
Regional
governments
Monitoring
Committees
Managing
Authorities
Certifying and
Paying Authorities
Intermediate
Bodies
Beneficiaries
Social partners
External experts

Context
(National, regional,
socio-economical,
political, cultural,
judiciary context)

Decentralization,
centralisation
Adaptation of the
model at national level
to its context

Principles and
phases
Programming
Management
procedures
Monitoring and
control system
Selection process
Financial
procedures
Coordination
Information and
publicity
Partnership role

Foreword, I will emphasize the differences between

the European and national level of the European
Cohesion Policy`s implementation system:
IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM OF EUROPEAN
COHESION POLICY
Common elements at Specific element at national
European level
level
Principles:
Partnership principle
Partnership
Regionalization,
principle
decentralizing,
centralization
Regionalization,
decentralizing
Programme and project
co-financing
Subsidiarity
Project management
Additionality
Project management Multi-annual
programming
Multi-annual
Incentives for feasible
programming
project creation
Transparency
Efficiency
in
project
selection
Transparency
Administrative capacity
Absorption capacity
European
Cohesion National economical and
Policy
social development policy
National priorities
Communitarian
National
institutional
institutional framework
framework with specific
competences
Coordination
(European
Coordination
Commission)
(Coordinator
of
the
National
Strategic
Implementing
reference framework Monitoring
NSRF)
Evaluation (at the
level of European Implementing
(Managing Authorities
cohesion policy)
of
the
operational
Control
programmes)
Monitoring (Monitoring
Committee of NSRF and
monitoring committees
of
each
operational
programme)
Evaluation (Coordinator
of the National Strategic
reference framework
at NSRF level and
Managing Authorities of
operational programmes
at programme level)
Control
(Audit
Authority)
Legislative background Legislative
background
regulations
regulation
and
specific
national legislation

15
Figure adapted from A Study of the Efficiency of the Implementation
Methods for Structural Funds Final Report, IR in association with
LRDP and IDOM, Viena, 2003.

Means:
financial
instruments structural
funds and cohesion fund

Beneficiaries:
states/regions

4.

member

Means:
Operational
programmes within the
funds are being accessed
Number of programmes
Applicable domains and
key
areas
of
interventions
Types
of
projects
(integrated or not)
Beneficiaries: different
types of beneficiaries
(small and medium
enterprises,
county
council, municipalities,
non-governmental
organizations)

Analysis on theoretical perspectives on

structural funds implementation system
After the period when public administration was
based on the Webers model of hierarchical
bureaucracy,
new
perspectives
of
public
management raised with the diversification of
actors and their interaction in the public sphere
and with their contribution within partnership
and coalitions to fulfil administrative tasks at
societal level. On this evolution the management
system of structural funds was built up, having at
background different theoretical perspectives:
1) New governance theory 16, which brings a
new vision on principles used in public
management, and especially emphasizing
the accountability of citizens and their
implication in partnerships and networks
in managing structural funds.
2) Principal agent theory and the relation
between actors in structural funds
implementation
system
have
been
considered a critique to new governance 17,
bringing into the light the control
mechanisms and the contractual realtions
beetween actors, especially when an agent
16

Governance has not the same sense government, the first term
referring to a new method, a new process of governing the society.
Problems which appear in clarifying the concept mentioned above are
related to specifying the method used to govern a society. Among the
different senses of the concept we can identify: governancegood
governance applying new public management principles;
governancesocio-cybernetic system interactions effects of
governmental, political, social economical actors, interaction in which
non of the mentioned types of actors is in a position of information
monopole of solving problems; governance- self organising
networks- networks in which individuals and public, private and nongovernmental organizations interact for offering public services, the
accent being on their autonomy as alternative mechanism in providing
public services Rhodes, W. The New Governance: Governing without
Government, Political Studies, XLIV, pg. 652-667, 1996.
17
Blom-Hansen, Jens Principals, agents, and the implementation of EU
cohesion policy, Journal of European Public Policy 12:4, 2005.

acts in a contractual relation as a

representative of a principal. Aslo, the critics is
related to the fact that national actors seem to
loose their power in the decision making
process, not existing a so called centre of
accumulated authority 18.
3) The descriptive elements generated by the
above mentioned theories have been crossed
with economical approaches on fund efficiency
allocation and spending, more concrete with
the attempt to prove the convergence and
divergence 19 probability of structural funds
interventions, by using mathematical models.
The two concepts try to prove the existence of
a positive or negative correlation between
these interventions and reducing socio economical disparities. In particular, the
theories that take into account the differences
in technological development 20 estimate those
venue disparities will vanish in a certain
period of time, while economical geography
literature 21 argues the emergence of an
opposite phenomenon by deepening the
divergence between analyzed counties.
Taking into consideration all the above mentioned the
supporters of European Cohesion Policy are centred
upon benefices brought by the implementation policys
model, especially on the multi annual programming
which encourages a strategic vision, on monitoring,
control and evaluation conditions, which influence the
thinking and acting manner of public administration
18
Hooghe, L. Introduction: Reconciling EU-wide policy and national
diversity, aped. Blom-Hansen, Jens Principals, agents, and the
implementation of EU cohesion policy, Journal of European Public Policy
12:4, 2005
19
Regional development knew two opposite economical perspectives
regarding the economical space of regional disparities evolution Convergence
theory of venues has its roots in neoclassical economical approaches of
equilibrium, considering that there are no major obstacols in functioning the
market and that these forces on the long run will bring a general convergence
of regional venues. G. Borts, J. Stein, J. W.; Chatterji M.; Barro R.; Sala-i
Martin, X; Boldrin M; Canova, F.; Marcet, de la Fuente, A; Galor, O.
Beugelsdijk M.; Eijffinger, Ezcurra R.; Rapu N; Lopez-Rodriguez J. i Faia.
The second approach proves that there are no sufficient reasons to believe that
economic growth and venues will lead to convergence on long term, and
regional disparities are more likely to occur. Economical growth models
developed by Perroux, F.; Myrdal, G. ; Kaldor, N; Miderlfart K; Overman
estimate that regional venues will tent to be divergent because market forces
are being in spatial lack of balance.
20
This perspective suggests that if a region uses its structural funds allocations
for promoting technological progress or for exploiting the existing
technological potential then the regional productivity will come closer to the
one of the more developed regions. Ederveen S.; Gorter, J; Ruud de Mooij;
Nahuis, R. Funds and Games. The Economics of European Cohesion
Policy, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2002,
http://www.cpb.nl/eng/pub/cpbreeksen/bijzonder/41/bijz41.pdf
21
This approach considers that if a company is located in a certain place, this
will make that area more attractive for other companies to be located in. In
this way, there are centrifugal forces in the developed regions and for the
undeveloped areas it will be difficult to recover the gap related to crowded
areas and to reverse the dynamics of this agglomeration. idem

in new member-states, on partnership principles

role in the design and implementation phases of
administrative decentralization policy. From a
financial point of view it is being arguing that
European Cohesion Policy puts together all the
efforts and national strategies into an European
perspective of spreading European governances
model.

princile and management descentralization 25 have

been considered the key elements in applying new
governmance theory. J. Ewalt makes an analysis of
public management`s evolution starting form
bureaucratic model of public administration untill
new governance theory, emphasizing the following:
a. The austerity of normative framework is
being replaced with the ideas of pramatism,
flexibility;
b. Ierarchy is being replased by the
descentralization process;
c. Results are not the only one to be
considered, the admninistrative process is
also being taken into consideration;
d. Financing is related to administrative
performance;
e. Institutions and actors from the nongovernamental area are being involved in
the administrative process;
f. Autonomous partnership and networks are
included in the implementation phase of the
process and their action capacity is
independent
from
the
governmental
authority;
g. Evolution through an adapting process,
learning by doing; 26
h. Market mechanisms are being prefered over
bureaucratic ones in public management.

Critics of this European policy are questioning the

fulfilment of its objectives, emphasizing costs,
bureaucratic means, incapacity of quantifying the
policys scope, not having a clear mission focusing
on economical growth, being a catch all policies
22.
I will analyze the implementation system of
European cohesion policy from the perspective of
new governance theories and principal - agent
theory, emphasizing the deficiencies appeared in
the management of this sector form functional
point of view.
4.1. Netwoking governance
A remarkable transformation has taken place in
recent years. The individualistic market-based
solutions to the problems of government, so loudly
trumpeted in the two decades to the mid 1990s,
are quietly being replaced by more collaborative
models and practices of social organisation. The
result has been the rapid growth of 'partnerships'
involving a wide variety of actors in undertaking
an extensive range of programmes across the
public policy agenda 23. As George Fredrickson
affirmed public administration is steadly moving
toward theories of cooperation, networking,
governance and institution building anad
maintenance. 24
The phase of entreprenorial government in
modern public administration centred on
providing public services in colaboration with all
sectors public, private and non-governamental,
on using market mechanisms, on saving public
budget, on preventing problems, on efficiency

On consider that the competitive system of the

market can not cope with all the problems of a
society/community and this is why, there has been
adopted the idea of collective solutions produced by
networks in which the state doesnt have the central
role anymore. Partnerships promote cooperation,
reciprocity and are legitimate to be involved in
governing the society. Networks have the necessary
expertise in certain areas, intervening in the
democratic process, constituting the middle level
between state and citizens. Under this paradigm the
evolution of European cohesion policy reforms took
place.
The most influencial current approach to
studying the role of region and cohesion policy
in the EU is multi-level governance 27

25

22
Tarschys D., Reinventing cohesion: the future of European Structural
Policy, SIEPS, Stockholm, 2003
23
Skelcher, Chris, Changing images of the State: overloaded,
hollowed-out, congested, Public Policy and Administration.
http://ppa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/3
24
Fredrickson, G., The reposition of American Public Administration,
Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, nr. 4, 1999

Osborne, D; Gaebler, T., Reinventing Government: How the

Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Perseus Publishing,
1992.
26
Ewalt. J.A, Theories of Governance and new public Management: Links to
Understand Welfare Policy Implementation, Annual conference of the
American Society for Public Administration, Easten Kentucky University,
Newark, NJ, 2001.
27
Rumford, C.,The European Union. A Political Sociology, Blackwell
Publishing, pg. 154, 2002

Studies on European Union have as variable the

multi-level governance, initially described as a
continuous negotiation system, within specificity
of European Cohesion Policy, between local,
regional, national governments,. Also, another
approach was related to the diffusion of decisional
level at informal level and at the networks level.
The optimal authority allocation within the
multitude of actors and the way that these actors
interact was the research elements on governance
at European level. Multi-level governance
affirmed
that
European
theoreticians 28
integration deals with numerous negotiations at
intergovernmental level, but the governments are
not remaining the gatekeepers of controlling this
process, there also were other actors involved in
the process. This theory is less about market
principles, rational choice and competition, is near
to institutionalism and natural/voluntary forms of
cooperation. New governance theory identifies the
debates as the most legitimate and efficient
mechanisms in decision making process in
complex organizational structures. Legislative
only establishes the directory lines of public
policies, cooperating with other actors involved in
determining the best means for fulfilling the
objectives of the policy. 29
Multi-level governance is also applied in the
European Cohesion Policys negotiations on the
three different levels European, national and
sub-national 30. 1 In one view, the 1988 reform
was integral to the development of a system of
multi-level governance in the policy sector,
whereby sub-national actors would become
increasingly important alongside European actors,
such as the Commission, and the central
governments of the member states 31, promoting
partnership and cooperation between those actors.
Negotiations for financial allocations, for
institutional
framework
of
operational
programmes` implementation and for structural
programming for establishing the main priorities
are important phases of European Cohesion
Policy, where new governance principles are being
applied. Especially on this last mentioned phase,
member-states` governments appeal to a
partnership system in order to fulfil the
Marks, G; Hooghe, L i Blank
Ford, Cristie L.,"New Governance, Compliance, and Principles-Based
Securities Regulation", American Business Law Journal, 2007.
30
Sutcliffe, B John., The 1999 Reform of the Structural Fund
Regulations: Multi-level Governance or Renationalization?, Journal of
European Public Policy, pg. 292, 2000.
31
Marks, G apud.. Sutcliffe, John B, The 1999 Reform of the Structural
Fund Regulations: Multi-level Governance or Renationalization?,
Journal of European Public Policy, pg. 292, 2000.
28
29

programming needed to manage allocated funds. The

vertical dimension (territorial dimension) and
horizontal dimension of European networks are part
of the management system, but the size and
magnitude of these networks depends on the specific
political culture 32 of each member- state. In some
countries the participatory level of actors in the
decision making process is higher than in other
countries, and this leads to different degrees of
societal actors` involvement in all the phases of the
structural funds management and control system. For
example, we can take as criterion the partnerships`
involvement in the entire process of operational
programmes` implementation, or only in some
phases 33.
There are some advantages and disadvantages related
to the use of this theory. As G. Fredrikson affirmed it
is in governance theory that public administration
wrestles with problems of representation, political
control of bureaucracy, and the democratic legitimacy
of institution and networks in this time of a
fragmentated state 34. The key element is residing
into the actors and the relations between these actors.
The systems description is reduced to the
nongovernmental action zone, to the actors` actions
and competences areas, without emphasizing
additional mechanisms used to influence the
management system. Taking into consideration the
principles mentioned above and the democratic
theories, the management system of the European
Cohesion Policy is being placed at a superior level of
citizens responsibility, being aware of problems in
implementing public policies.
In the article Toward a Political Framework for
Flexible Management of Decline, there are described
the advantages of this approach in public
management, emphasising the flexibility of the
system, the risks that actors assume in the process of
a public policy creation, being a participatory process
with flexible structures in which consensus and
proactive attitude are the main principles 35. Among
the advantages, the authors also talk about avoiding
rigid reactions and the openness through all
opportunities and solutions, about the acceptance of a
32

Political culture is referring to attitudes towards political system, a set of

orientations towards a special set of objects and social processes. Almond, G.
i Verba, S., Cultura civic, Bucureti, DU Style CEU Press. 1996.
33
Bourou, Alina, Fondurile Structurale. Probleme, soluii i perspective
pentru Romnia n volumul Evaluare de programe i politici publice,
cood. Mirela Cerkez, Polirom, Collegium, 2009
34
Fredrickson, G. The reposition of American Public Administration.
Political Science and Politics.Vol. 32. No 4, 1999.
35
Rosenblatt, Z.; Rogers, S. K.; Nord, R. W.., Toward a Political Framework
for Flexible Management of Decline, Organization Science, Vol. 4, No. 1,
Focused Issue: Organizational Decline and Adaptation: Theoretical
Controversies, (Feb., 1993), pg. 76-91.

shared governance process, the consensus

building and negotiation in solving conflicts. All
these elements legitimate the decision making
process and create a more transparent
environment involving all the concerned actors in
solving a social problem.
All these principles vary in a comparative
approach of structural funds implementation
system; differences are being evident on the
vertical axe between the communitarian and
national level and on the horizontal axe between
member-states. As an example, the public
communication function and the way that it has to
be fulfilled is established at the communitarian
level, within regulations, and in this way it should
be uniform to all member-states. But public
information differs from one state to another and
also its communicational context, depending on
the public transparency legislation in public
administration of these states. The involvement at
national level of social actors, of interest groups in
the structural funds implementation system
depends on system building capacity, on the
specific civic culture, on a historical approach of
interest groups involvement in shaping and
implementing public policies.
Analysing the communication function, the
involvement level of interest groups in the
management system and framing the analysis
into the communication models 36 may lead to us
to a conclusion related to the level of governance
in the structural funds implementation system. It
can be associated, for instance, in a matrix the
actors` involvement in all phases of the
implementation system and bidirectional and
symmetrical model of communication 37.

sometimes in conflict. Public policies are not

considered as ante-formulated objectives, but as
interactions and exchange of information between
actors, being a building process of preferences,
objectives and resources. Governance is concentred on
conscious and deliberative actions of public actors
(individuals, coalitions, organizations, etc) to
influence social process 38. According to the theoretical
approach mentioned above the European Cohesion
Policy is a result of the interaction between these
actors, being implemented in inter-depended
networks.
Another disadvantage is related to .underrepresentation of key actors in public-private
partnership, which can be explained by the
impossibility to cope all the citizens in decisional
process and in implementing public policies. Also, we
can add the resistance of some actors to reform; there
are certain social groups that, due to the advantages
that benefit at certain moment, would be against of all
change of the system that could lead to loosing their
initial status. Beside this, the inadaptability of public
administration to deal with diversity, to experiment,
to promote flexibility can also be considered a
disadvantage in applying the new governance theory
in public policy. This inadaptability is due to the
rigidity of the weberian bureaucratic model of public
administration.
Walter J.M.Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M.
Koppenjan talk about the following disadvantages in
public policys implementation by using networking
interaction:
a. the absence of incentives in the cooperation
process between actors; the blocking actions in
collective decisions;
b. The policys objectives can be imprecise and
vague and can vary from one group to
another, which will lead to passionate
disputes and the impossibility to reach a
consensus;
c. Actors that act in the implementing field of a
public policy can be absent from its
elaboration, while the presence of other actors
can discourage the interaction of others.
d. The level of expertise in a certain field can be
different among actors that participate at the
elaboration of a public policy and some
decisions can be taken in ignorance. 39

The implementation of European Cohesion Policy

using networks perspective has also its
difficulties.
Within
networks
there
are
independent actors with different strategies,
36
There are 4 models of communication identified by taking into
account the phases in the public relations` evolution. These models are:
agent popularity, public information, the bidirectional and asymmetric
communication and bidirectional and symmetrical communication.
Details in Grunig, J., Excellence and Public Relations and
Communication Management, Lawrennce Erlbaum Associates
Inc.,1992.
37
Main characteristic of the model are: the accent is on the
communication target groups` feedback, the organization using this
feedback to reach its objectives and to identify the targeted public needs;
the interested parties involved in the communicational process have the
same importance, the mediation between the organization and its publics
takes into account an equity in interest representation of the involved
actors in an equilibrate relation. Grunig, J., Excellence and Public
Relations and Communication Management, Lawrennce Erlbaum
Associates Inc., 1992.

38

idem
Kickert, J.M.W; Klijn, E-H; Koppenjan F.M. J.,(eds.), Managing Complex
Networks- Strategies for the Public Sector Sage Publications, London, 1997
review of Cristina Ion .www.iccv.ro/romana/revista/rcalvit/pdf/cv1999.34.r02.pdf
39

10

Contractual
agreement/contractual
benefices/ payment

4.2. Principal, agents and management

system of structural funds
The approach of Jens Blom-Hansen in analysing
the structural funds implementation system is
related to principal-agent theory. This approach
brings in the centre of analysis the control
mechanisms of the implementation system, more
concrete, the contractual relation between an
agent and a principal. This theory has been
initially developed in the private sector, analysing
the relation between private actors (owners,
managers), afterwards it has been applied to
bureaucratic model of public institutions,
exemplifying corrupt relations. The model implies
the existence of three actors: principal - P, agent A and client - C:

Correct reporting/
false reporting

Contractual
agreement/contractual
benefices/ payment

Negotiate
the
contract/
fails
respecting
the contract

Monitoring
Corrupti
on acts

1. P creates the rules for A using a

contractual agreement with the purpose of
regulating different exchange actions
(licences, contracts, services) with C. In
the context of these relations it may
appear some incompatibilities, conflicts of
interest between P and A, taking into
consideration that each actor tries to
maximize its own utility and advantages,
acting rationally. P tries to maximise its
own advantages by hiring or delegating
some tasks to A, and this last one,
disposing of an informational advantage is
in the position in which can hide a part of
information from P. Loosing the loyalist
relation between A and P can be identified
also in A breaking the rules in favour of C.

These
elements
are
being
found
in
the
implementation system of structural funds, being a
system with multiple contractual and control levels.

2. The model was developed by including

another variable audit/supervisor S,
with the role of monitoring A`s actions. S
is usually hired to monitor and to report
the quality and the corectness of A`s
actions. Also, in this case there can be
corruption, as false reporting of S or A to
P 40

2. At European level 42 P is represented by the

European Union, especially by the European
Commission, A is represented by the memberstates and S by the European Court of
Auditors
or
other
institutions
with
counterbalancing
role.
The
main
characteristics of this level is given by the
number of P, respectively the number of
member-states that negotiate between them
and with the European Commission (P) the
values and the contractual benefices,
respectively the national strategic frameworks
for the operational programmes` management.
The contracts are between P and A,
representing
the
national
strategic
frameworks of each eligible member-state
within the European Cohesion Policy.

1. The relations scheme mentioned above are

being multiplied on different levels of the
European Cohesion Policy implementation
system, at communitarian, national, regional
and individual level, the last level is referring
to beneficiaries. In this context, some actors
can take the place of P in a superior level and
the place of A at an inferior level or P in a
level and S in another level. This repeated
intersection of roles between actors and levels
ensures stability to the system and contouring
the monitoring complex scheme of the entire
construction, creating circular relations.

Fig. 2. Exemplifying contractual and

monitoring relations in principal agent
theory 41

40
Lambsdorff, J.G., How Corruption in Government Affects Public
Welfare. Center for Globalization and Europeanization of the
Economy, 2001.
41
Figure from Lambsdorff, J.G., How Corruption in Government
Affects Public Welfare. Center for Globalization and Europeanization
of the Economy, 2001

42

The criterium for level clasification taken into account is placed at A`s
action zone..

11

3.

4.

At national level, as almost a rule, P is

represented by the ministry of finance or by
the ministry responsible with the national
strategic framework, A is represented by the
resort ministries and S is the audit authority
of the national system. The particularity of
this level is also given by the number of A,
number established according to the national
development priorities of each eligible
member state, by the number of the
operational
programmes.
Contractual
agreements between A and P are the
operational programmes, negotiated between
As under the surveillance of the management
authority of national strategic framework.
Also, at this stage we can emphasize an
intersection with the European level at P`s
level, in the sense of the Commission
approving
the
national
operational
programmes.
At regional level P is, as a rule, the resort
ministry
with
implication
in
the
administrative field of the operational
programme, A is represented by the
intermediate bodies of different operational
programmes with delegated tasks in
implementing those programmes and S is the
audit authority of the national system,
internal audit departments of resort
ministries, the certifying authority situated at
the level of ministry of finance most of the
cases,
the
monitoring
committees
of
operational programmes and of national
strategic framework. The main characteristics
at this level is given by the multitude of
intermediate bodies for each operational
programmes, by the relation between A and P
in the sense that A can be decentralized
agency of P or an independent institution
towards P. The nature of the contractual
agreement between A and P depends on the
subordinating level of A towards P. In the case
in which A is independent towards P, the
contractual relations between those two actors
take the form of technical assistance
agreements, management contracts for
fulfilling the delegated tasks. Also, we must
add the multiplication of S and the
intersection of levels at this stage, realised by
the Certifying and Paying Authority placed in
the responsible institution with the national
strategic framework and being responsible of
verifying the eligibility of expenditures and
the fulfilment of delegated tasks to A.

5. At individual level. P is represented by the

intermediate
bodies
of
operational
programmes, A is constituted by the
beneficiaries of these programmes and S is
audit authority of the national system, the
internal audit department of resort ministries
and the certifying and paying authority.
Fig. 3. New governance theory`s intersection
with new principal agent in the implmentation
system of European Cohesion Policy
Legend:
EC European Commission
EP European Parliament
OP Operational Programme
MA Managing Authority
MC Monitoring Committee
IB Intermediate Body
AA Audit Authority
CPA Certifying and Paying Authority
NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

12

Fig. 3. New governance theory`s intersection with new principal agent in the
implementation system of European Cohesion Policy

European level

Contractual
benefices / NSRF
and OP/funds

P - EC
EP Budget approval for
European Cohesion Policy

Monitoring
Negotiates
the contract

Monitoring

A
memberstates

S European
Court of
Auditors/EP

National level
P MA
NSRF

Contract/contractual
benefices/ OP/funds

Monitoring
Negotiates
the contract
A MA
OP

Monitoring

S
AA/CPA/MC/
EC

Regional level
Delegated tasks`
agreement/negotiations
/funds

Negotiates the
Monitoring
contract
Monitoring

A IB
OP

Individual level

P MA
OP

Financial
contract

S
AA/CPA/MC/A
whitin MA

P IB for
each OP
Monitoring

A beneficiaries

Monitoring

S AA/CPA/MC/A
within IB and MA

13

As I already affirmed the principal agent

perspective has been developed as a
criticism to new governance theory applied
to the structural funds implementation
system. Jens Blom-Hansen considers that in
new governance theory appears the
supposition that the governance networks
from the structural funds` implementation
system control the European Cohesion
Policy, not explaining why this is
happening. In other words, if national/subnational actors that implement the
European Cohesion Policy can influence its
content, its control mechanisms at European
level are very weak. The main problem of
the
contract
from
the
subsidiarity
perspective
of
structural
funds`
implementation system is connected to the
agents loyalty in the context of delegated
tasks and to ensure this loyalty. In this way
there are 4 control mechanisms - on the
selection process of agents, a contractual
design with incentives for A in order to fulfil
it obligations, monitoring agents` actions
and penalties for not fulfilling the
contractual obligations. 43
As it shown in figure 3, the system becomes
more and more complicated top-down by the
multitude or control and monitoring
institutions 44. Besides this, the intersection
between levels gives to the control
mechanisms more efficiency. In my opinion
the two perspectives are not opposite, but
they can be considered complementary in
order to create a concrete image of how the
system functions and where can be
difficulties in the control system. The
principal agent theory brings into discussion
the contractual relations and the control
functions of the system with all its
implications. Using the lens of this theory
the system appears as string contractual
relations at different levels, intersected by
the control mechanisms. The principal agent
theory
emphasizes
a
supra-stratified
contractual relation in the European
Cohesion Policys implementation system
and the apparition of another analysis level,
respectively the individual level of
beneficiaries.

43

Blom-Hansen, J. Principals, agents, and the implementation

of EU cohesion policy, Journal of European Public Policy
12:4, 2005.
44
I have to add that I didn`t realise a distinction at S`s level for
simplifying the applicability of the theory.

New governance theory brings to this system

of contractual agreements the partnership
principle and governance networks applied by
lobby and advocacy actions in strategic
decision making, conferring a democratic view
of the entire system. New governance theory
explains the process of including different
actors in the European cohesion policys
implementation with the purpose of ensuring a
more transparent management process and a
higher absorption rate. The partnership
principle and networking governance were
implemented top-down, being the result of
different reforms of European Cohesion Policy.
From this level it can be observed the
applicability of the partnership principle,
trying to decentralize the system and to create
control
and
monitoring
structures
at
local/regional level. This theory emphasizes
the decisional process and social mechanism of
monitoring.

5. BIBLIOGRAFY
Academic Studies
1. Ahner, D., Conference Debates Future
of
European
Cohesion
Policy,
http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng/slovenia/p
ublications/slovenia-news/6265/6286/.
2. Allen, D. Coeziunea i fondurile
structurale. Presiuni multiple n
direcia reformei , articol publicat n
lucrarea Wallace, H., Wallace, W.,
Pollack, M., Elaborarea Politicilor n
Uniunea European, IER, 2005.
3. Almond, G. i Verba, S., Cultura
civic, DU Style CEU Press,
Bucureti, 1996.
4. Bachtler J.; Taylor S., The added
value of the Structural Funds, IQNet
Special Paper, European Policies
Research
Centre,
University
of
Strathclyde, 2003.
5. Bachtler J., Mendez C., si Wishlade F
Ideas for Budget and Policy Reform:
Reviewing the Debate on Cohesion
Policy
2014+,
European
Policy
Research Papers, nr. 67, European
Policies Research Centre, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow,2009.
6. Barbulescu, Iordan, UE Politicile
extinderii, Tritonic, 2006.
7. Begg, I., Complementing EMU,
Rethinking
Cohesion
Policy
,

14

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

European Institute, LSE, The

Oxford Rewiew of Economic Policy,
2003.
Blombren Bingham, L.; OLeary, R.;
Nabatchi, T. Legal Frameworks for
the New Governance: Processes for
Citizen Participation in the Work of
Government,
National
Civic
Review, 2005.
Blom-Hansen,
J.,
Principals,
agents, and the implementation of
EU cohesion policy, Journal of
European Public Policy, 2005.
Borra, S.; Jacobsson, K. The open
method of co-ordination and new
governance patterns in the EU ,
Journal of European Public Policy,
2004.
Bourosu,
Alina,
Fondurile
Structurale. Probleme, soluii i
perspective pentru Romnia. in
volumul Evaluare de programme i
politici
publice,
cood.
Mirela
Cerkez, Polirom, Collegium, 2009.
Cardenas, J.C. si Ostrom, E., How
Norms Help Reduce the Tragedy of
the Commons: A Multi-Layer
Framework for Analyzing Field
Experiments. In Norms and the
Law, ed. John N. Drobak,
Cambridge University Press. 2006.
Diez,
M.-A.
Evaluating
New
Regional Policies: Reviewing the
Theory and Practice, Evaluation,
2002,
http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ab
stract/8/3/285.
Ekins, P.; Medhurst, J., European
Structural Funds and Sustainable
Development A Methodology and
Indicator
Framework
for
Evaluation,
Evaluation,
2006,
http://evi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/ab
stract/12/4/474.
Ederveen S.; Gorter, J; Ruud de
Mooij; Nahuis, R. Funds and
Games. The Economics of European
Cohesion Policy, CPB Netherlands
Bureau
for
Economic
Policy
Analysis,
2002,
http://www.cpb.nl/eng/pub/cpbreekse
n/bijzonder/41/bijz41.pdf
Ewalt. J.A, Theories of Governance
and new public Management: Links
to Understand Welfare Policy
Implementation, Annual conference
of the American Society for Public

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Administration,
Easten
Kentucky
University, 2001.
Fayolle, J.; Lecuyer, A., Regional
growth, national membership and
European
structural
funds:
an
empirical appraisal, 2000.
Ferry, M.; Gross, F., Bachtler, J. ,
McMaster, Irene, Turning strategies
into projects: The implementation of
2007-2013
structural
funds
programmes,
European
Policies
Research
Center,
2007www.eprc.strath. ac.uk
Fredrickson, G., The reposition of
American
Public
Administration,
Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32,
nr. 4, 1999.
Grunig, J., Excellence and Public
Relations
and
Communication
Management, Lawrennce Erlbaum
Associates Inc.,1992.
Hooghe. L. (ed.), Cohesion Policy and
European
Integration.
Building
Multilevel Governance, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996.
Hooghe, L.; Marks, G., Unraveling the
Central State, but How? Types of
Multi-Level
Governance,
The
American Political Science Review,
Vol. 97, nr. 2, 2003.
Hanberger, A., What is the Policy
Problem?: Methodological Challenges
in Policy Evaluation, Evaluation,
2001.
Klmn, J. Possible Structural Funds
Absorption Problems.The Political
Economy View with Application to the
Hungarian Regional Development
Institutions and Financial System,
http://lgi.osi.hu/publications/2002/105/
Marcou-Hungary.pdf
Kickert, J.M.W; Klijn, E-H; Koppenjan
F.M. J.,(eds.), Managing Complex
Networks- Strategies for the Public
Sector Sage Publications, London,
1997 recenzie realizat de Cristina
Ion
.www.iccv.ro/romana/revista/rcalvit/pdf
/cv1999.3-4.r02.pdf
Lambsdorff, J.G., How Corruption in
Government Affects Public Welfare.
Center
for
Globalization
and
Europeanization of the Economy, 2001.
Lang, J.; Naschold, F.; Reissert, B.
Reforming the implementation of
European Structural Funds. A next
development
step

15

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fr
Sozialforschung
gGmbH
(WZB)
Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin
Ltge,
C.,Self-Governing
the
Commons? Political Theory and
Constitutional Economics, 2002
http://www.iou.uzh.ch/orga/downloa
ds/EGOS2002/Luetge.pdf
Manzella, G.P.; Mendez, C., The
turning points of EU Cohesion
policy, Report Working Paper, ian.
2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/p
olicy/future/pdf/8_manzella_finalformatted.pdf.
Marinov, V.; Bahloul, H.; Slay, B.
Structural funds and the new
member states: lessons learned,
http://www.undp.bg/uploads/File/eve
nts/eu_accession/assessment_reports
_junejuly06/article_partnershiprepor
t_2006_en.pdf
Muller, Kai-Uwe si Mohl, P.,
Structural Funds in an Enlarged
EU.A Politico-Economic Analysis,
Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR
Conference,
Budapest,
8-10
Septembrie
2005,
http://www.fleishmanhillard.eu/about-us/careerinternships
Molle, W., European Cohesion
Policy, Routledge, 2007
Ostrom, E., Guvernarea bunurilor
comune : evoluia instituiilor
pentru aciunea colectiv, Polirom,
2007
Ostrom E., How Types of Goods and
Property Rights Jointly Affect
Collective Action, Journal of
Theoretical Politics, Vol. 15, nr. 3,
pg.
239-270,
2003,
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/umccc/ostr
om.pdf
Osborne,
D;
Gaebler,
T.,
Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial
Spirit
is
Transforming the Public Sector,
Perseus Publishing, 1992.
Pop, R., Politics of cohesion and
structural funds support of the
reorganization and modernization
process for the member states,
http://steconomice.uoradea.ro/anale/
volume/2008/v1-internationalbusiness-and-europeanintegration/081.pdf

37. Puigcerver-Penalver,
M.-C.,
The
Impact of Structural Funds Policy on
European
Regions!
Growth.
A
Theoretical and Empirical Approach,
article from The European Journal of
Comparative Economics, Vol.4, nr.2,
2007, http://eaces.liuc.it;
38. Renart, Marcos A.; Enguix, Rocio
Moreno;
Hernandez-Mora,
Jose
Antonio Vidal, Errors and weaknesses
detected by the European Court of
Auditors in the reports on the
European Structural Funds 2000
2004, Dpto. de Economa Financiera y
Contabilidad, Facultad de Econoa y
Empresa, Spain, 2007
39. Rhodes, W. The New Governance:
Governing
without
Government,
Political Studies, XLIV, pg. 652-667,
1996.
40. Rosenblatt, Z.; Rogers, S. K.; Nord, R.
W.., Toward a Political Framework for
Flexible Management of Decline,
Organization Science, Vol. 4, No. 1,
Focused Issue: Organizational Decline
and
Adaptation:
Theoretical
Controversies, 1993.
41. Rumford, C., The European Union. A
Political
Sociology,
Blackwell
Publishing, 2002.
42. Rosenberg,
C.;
Sierhej,
R.,
Interpreting EU Funds Data for
Macroeconomic Analysis in the New
Member States, IMF WP 77/07,
www.imf.org/cee.
43. Susanu, M., Romanian Pattern in
Absorption and Management of
European Structural Funds: A Critical
Analysis,
http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/11095/,
http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/11095/MPRA Paper No.
11095, 2008.
44. Sutcliffe, John B. The 1999 Reform of
the Structural Fund Regulations:
Multi-level
Governance
or
Renationalization? n Journal of
European Public Policy, 2000.
45. Tabellini,
G.,
Principles
of
Policymaking in the European Union:
An Economic Perspective, CESifo
Economic Studies, Vol. 49, 1/2003.
46. Theophilou, V.; Bond, A.; Cashmore,
M. ,Application of the SEA Directive
to EU structural funds: Perspectives
on
effectiveness,
Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 2009.

16

47. Verheijen, T, World Bank, EU-8

Administrative Capacity in the New
Member States: The Limits of
Innovation?,
2006,
http://www.rcpar.org/mediaupload/p
ublications/2009/20090413_EU_8_A
dministrative_Capacity_in_the_New
_Member_States_The_Limits_of_Inn
ovation.pdf
Legislation and other types of studies
48. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/p
olicy/history/index_en.htm
49. A Study of the Efficiency of the
Implementation
Methods
for
Structural Funds Final Report, IR
in association with LRDP and
IDOM, Vienna, December 2003 / A
2715.10,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/so
urces/docgener/studies/pdf/3cr/efficie
ncy_methods_sum.pdf
50. 16th Annual Report on the
implementation of the Structural
Funds
(2004)

European
Commision,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/so
urces/docoffic/official/repor_en.htm
51. European Commission, Report on
Budgetary
and
Financial

52.

53.

54.

55.

Management- Yearbootk - 2003,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/infos/
publications_en.htm;
EU
Cohesion
Policy
1988-2008:
Investing in Europes future, European
Commission, Directorate-General for
Regional
Policy,
Unit
B1

Communication,
Information,
Relations with third countries, 2008
Guidelines for the ex post evaluation of
objective 5 B programmes 1994-1999
programming
period,
European
Commision,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/ben
.pdf
Partnership
in
the
2000-2006
programming period Analysis of the
implementation of the partnership
principle DISCUSSION PAPER OF
DG
REGIO,
2005,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sour
ces/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/partners
hip_report2005.pdf
Politica de dezvoltare regional, l
Phare
RO
0006.18.02,
http://www.ier.ro/documente/formare/
Politica_regionala.pdf.

17