Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combating corruption in Europe: a stimulus–response approach

  • Symposium
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What is the effect of external stimuli in curbing corruption at the national level? This article analyses the intervening impact of EU post-conditionality and GRECO monitoring on countries’ anti-corruption record. It finds that “soft governance” has a positive impact and stimulates national responses against corruption. This positive influence increases when is additionally conditioned by strong internal stimuli targeting corruption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Note: The lines show in percentages the substantive allocation to criticism and recommendations from each annual CVM report

Fig. 2

Source: World Bank, World Governance Indicator (Control of Corruption) www.govindicators.org

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the case of Bulgaria, the 6 benchmarks were mainly set around the need for ‘non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-level corruption’, measures to fight corruption at the local level and a strategy to fight organized crime. Romania’s 4 targets were the investigations of high-level corruption as in the case of Bulgaria, but additionally the establishment of an integrity agency and the need for measures aimed at preventing corruption (European Commission 2006).

  2. The EU CVM reports are published twice a year, whilst the GRECO reports were released once every 3–5 years. GRECO analysis is based on meetings with public officials and members of civil society, but also the latter replies to questionnaires applied by GRECO. The EU reports are prepared after the Commission organizes expert missions to both countries three times a year. During these visits, the experts consult with the government, non-governmental organizations and the Commission’s local representative.

  3. The World Governance Indicators (WGI) are comparable across time. The Corruption Perception Index as compiled by Transparency International (TI) is comparable only from 2012. For other new indicators such as the Public Integrity Index, there are no time series data collected yet.

  4. GRECO’s principle 7 refers to the promotion and specialization of persons or bodies in charge of fighting corruption, and principle 3 refers to the independence and autonomy of all those involved in preventing, prosecuting and adjudicating corruption offences (Council of Europe 2016).

  5. Amongst the New EU12, other countries which did not adopt a national anti-corruption strategy include Malta, Lithuania, Cyprus and Czech Republic.

  6. In addition to Transparency International, a list of NGOs fight corruption comprises amongst others, in Romania: The Alliance for a Clean Romania (http://sar.org.ro), The Expert Forum (EFOR, http:expertforum.ro), The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP; http: riseproject.ro); and in Bulgaria: The Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD, www.csd.bg) and its initiative the Coalition 2000 process.

  7. Open Government Partnership, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/, last accessed June 2016.

  8. The IPPI score on judicial independence ranges from 1 = heavily influenced to 7 = entirely independent. The Romanian score for judicial independence in 2016 was reported as 5.58 and for Bulgaria 3.5.

References

  • Böhmelt, T., and T. Freyburg. 2012. The Temporal Dimension of the Credibility of EU Conditionality and Candidate States' Compliance with the Acquis Communitaire, 1998–2009. European Union Politics 14(2): 250–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, S., D. Dolowitz, P. Humphreys, and S. Padgett. 2007. Policy Transfer in European Union Governance: Regulating the utilities. London: Rutledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buonanno, L., and N. Nugent. 2013. Policies and Policy Processes of the European Union. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, P., and D. Papadimitriou (eds.). 2012. The EU’s Lisbon Agenda: Evaluating Success, Understanding Failure. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. 2016. Resolution 97(24) On the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight Against Corruption. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco/about-greco/priority-for-the-coe. Accessed March 2018.

  • CSD. 2012. Corruption and Anti-corruption in Bulgaria (2011–2012) Policy Brief No. 35, November 2014. Available at www.csd.bg.

  • CSD. 2014. Corruption and Anti-corruption in Bulgaria (2013–2014) Policy Brief No. 46, November 2014. Available at www.csd.bg.

  • CSD The Centre for the Study of Democracy. 2009. Crime Without Punishment. Countering Corruption and Organized Crime in Bulgaria. Available at www.csd.bg.

  • DNA. 2014. Raport de Activitate 2014. http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=241.

  • DNA. 2015. Raport de Activitate 2015. Available at: http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=249.

  • DNA Directia Nationala AntiCoruptie. 2013. Raport de Activitate 2013. Available at: http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=231.

  • Doig, A. 1995. Good Government and Sustainable Anti-corruption Strategies: A Role for Independent Anti-corruption Agencies? Public Administration and Development 15: 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ERCAS European Research Centre for Anti-corruption and State-Building. 2015. Public Integrity and Trust in Europe. Berlin: Hertie School of Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2006. Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Bulgaria and Romania. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu. Accessed March 2018.

  • European Commission. 2009a. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania Under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism.

  • European Commission. 2009b. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Bulgaria Under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism {SEC(2009) 1074}.

  • European Commission. 2015. Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/.

  • Ganev, V. 2013. Post-accession Hooliganism: Democratic Governance in Bulgaria and Romania After 2007. East European Politics and Societies 27: 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., G. Sasse, and C. Gordon. 2004. Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. The Myth of Conditionality. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A.K. 2001. Corruption: A Review. Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 71–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunicová, J., and S. Rose-Ackerman. 2005. Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science 35: 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mungiu-Pippidi, A. 2013. Controlling Corruption Through Collective Action. Journal of Democracy 24(1): 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mungiu-Pippidi, A. 2015. The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Coruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peiffer, C., and L. Alvarez. 2015. Who Will Be the “Principled-Principals” Perceptions of Corruption and Willingness to Engage in Anticorruption Activism. Governance 29(3): 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Integrity Index IPI. 2016. Available at http://integrity-index.org/.

  • Quah, J.S.T. 1984. The Public Policy-Making Process in Singapore. Asian Journal of Public Administration 6(2): 108–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quah, J.S.T. 2003. Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quah, J.S.T. 2010. Defying Institutional Failure: Earning from the Experiences of Anti-corruption Agencies in Four Asian Countries. Crime, Law and Social Change 53: 23–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasse, G. 2008. The European Neighbourhood Policy: Conditionality Revisited for the EU’s Eastern Neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies 60(2): 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedelmeier, U. 2012. Is Europeanisation Through Conditionality Sustainable? Lock-in of Institutional Change After EU Accession. West European Politics 35(1): 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smismans, S. 2011. From Harmonization to Co-ordination? EU Law in the Lisbon Governance Architecture. Journal of European Public Policy 18(4): 504–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spendzarova, A., and M. Vachudova. 2012a. Catching Up? Consolidating Liberal Democracy in Bulgaria and Romania. West European Politics 35(1): 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spendzarova, A., and Vachudova, M. 2012b. The EU’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism: Fighting Corruption in Bulgaria and Romania after EU accession. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, March, issue 1.

  • Transparency International. 2016. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/.

  • Tsoneva, J., and Medarov, G. n.d. The Rise of the Rhizomatic Party Form. Available at academia.edu.

  • UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2014. On Track Against Corruption. Available at: http://www.track.unodc.org/ACAuthorities/Pages/home.aspx.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, McCance Building, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, UK

    Gabriela Borz

Authors
  1. Gabriela Borz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Borz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 GRECO evaluation rounds for Romania and Bulgaria.
Full size table
Table 2 GRECO evaluation per themes and national measures adopted.
Full size table
Table 3 CVM reports for Romania and Bulgaria 2007–2014.
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borz, G. Combating corruption in Europe: a stimulus–response approach. Eur Polit Sci 18, 217–233 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0151-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0151-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation