Advertisement

A Causal Mechanism for Absorption Problems

  • Christian Hagemann
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

This chapter presents two detailed case studies of operational programmes with absorption problems from the 2007–2013 financing period. It builds on the combination of conditions detected in the fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in chapter four to formulate a causal mechanism for absorption problems, and then specifies empirical observations to test this mechanism. The mechanism is tested in two process tracing case studies, the Czech OP Environment and the Romanian OP Transport. The chapter closes again with a detailed discussion of the findings and their contribution.

Keywords

Case studies Causal mechanism Absorption problems Process tracing 

References

  1. Åslund, A. (2010). The Last Shall Be the First: The East European Financial Crisis. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Bachtler, J., Mendez, C., & Oraže, H. (2014). From Conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative Performance and Capacity in Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, D. (2018). Achieving Methodological Alignment When Combining QCA and PT in Practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 64–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2018). Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(4), 837–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beach, D., & Rohlfing, I. (2018). Integrating Cross-Case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Research Strategies and Parameters of Debate. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beichelt, T. (2004). Die Europäische Union nach der Osterweiterung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blažek, J. (2011). Czech Republic. Expert Evaluation Network. Prague: Charles University. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/#1. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  10. Blažek, J. (2012). Czech Republic. Expert Evaluation Network. Prague: Charles University. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/expert_innovation/2012_een_task2_cz.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  11. Bloom, S., & Petrova, V. (2013). National Subversion of Supranational Goals: ‘Pork-Barrel’ Politics and EU Regional Aid. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(8), 1599–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bubbico, R. L., & De Michelis, N. (2011) The Financial Execution of Structural Funds (Regional Focus No. 3/2011). Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2011_03_financial.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  13. Česká Pozice. (2011a). Finance Ministry Suspends EU Fund License (Published 15 April 2011). Available at http://ceskapozice.lidovky.cz/finance-ministry-suspends-eu-fund-license-fil-/tema.aspx?c=A110415_163858_pozice_11946. Accessed 11 July 2015.
  14. Česká Pozice. (2011b). SFŽP Whistle-Blower Given Kč 500,000 Reward (Published 23 March 2011). Available at http://ceskapozice.lidovky.cz/sfzp-whistle-blower-given-kc-500-000-reward-fct-/tema.aspx?c=A110323_172658_pozice_9493. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.
  15. Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (pp. 229–266). Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  16. CZ. (2007a). OP Environment 2007–2013. National Strategic Reference Framework. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/5060/detail/the-operational-programme-environment—for-the-period-2007-2013/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  17. CZ. (2007b). OP Transport 2007–2013. National Strategic Reference Framework. Prague: Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic. Available at http://www.opd.cz/Providers/Document.ashx?id=48. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  18. CZ. (2009a). Annual Report for 2008. Annual Implementation Report. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/5061/detail/annual-report-op-environment-2008/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  19. CZ. (2009b). Meeting of the Monitoring Committee of Czech OP Enviroment on 3 December 2009. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at www.opzp2007-2013.cz/soubor-ke-stazeni/22/6873-minutes_6th_mc_ope_12_03_2009_final.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2015.
  20. CZ. (2010a). Annual Report for 2009. Annual Implementation Report. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic, Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/14284/detail/annual-report-ope-2009/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  21. CZ. (2010b). Meeting of the Monitoring Committee of Czech OP Enviroment on 2 December 2010. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at https://www.sfzp.cz/soubor-ke-stazeni/40/12032-Minutes_8th_MC%20OPE_02_12_2010.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2015.
  22. CZ. (2010c). Meeting of the Monitoring Committee of Czech OP Enviroment on 3 June 2010. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at https://www.sfzp.cz/soubor-ke-stazeni/36/11082-Minutes_7th_MC_OPE_06_03_2010.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2015.
  23. CZ. (2012). Annual Report for 2011. Annual Implementation Report. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/14283/detail/annual-report-op-environment-2011-incl-annexes/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  24. CZ. (2013). Annual Report for 2012. Annual Implementation Report. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/15626/detail/annual-report-ope-for-2012-incl-appendices/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  25. CZ. (2014). Annual Report for 2013. Annual Implementation Report. Prague: Ministry of Environment, Czech Republic. Available at http://en.opzp2007-2013.cz/ke-stazeni/515/15731/detail/annual-report-op-environment-for-2013-incl-annexes/. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  26. CZ. (2015). Ministry of Regional Development, Czech Republic: National Coordination Authority. Available at http://62.109.144.163/en/Fondy-EU/Narodni-organ-pro-koordinaci. Accessed 11 July 2015.
  27. CZ1. (2014). Interview in Prague with Policy Expert on 3 June 2014.Google Scholar
  28. CZ1. (2015). Interview in Prague with Policy Expert on 14 May 2015.Google Scholar
  29. CZ6. (2015). Interview in Prague with Czech Official on 14 May 2015.Google Scholar
  30. CZ7. (2015). Interview in Prague with Czech Official on 14 May 2015.Google Scholar
  31. CZ8. (2015). Interview in Prague with Czech Official on 15 May 2015.Google Scholar
  32. European Commission (2015) EU Will Invest Nearly €9.5 Billion in Romania for Transport, Environment and Energy. Brussels: European Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  33. European Commission. (2016). Innovation and Networks Executive Agency: TEN-T Programme 2007–2013. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/ten-t. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  34. Frank, K. (2013). Slovakia. Expert Evaluation Network. Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/2013_een_task2_sk.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  35. Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection for Case-Study Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (pp. 645–684). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goetz, K. H. (2001). Making Sense of Post-communist Central Administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization? Journal of European Public Policy, 8(6), 1032–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haughton, T., Novotná, T., & Deegan-Krause, K. (2011). The 2010 Czech and Slovak Parliamentary Elections: Red Cards to the ‘Winners’. West European Politics, 34(2), 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitschelt, H. (2001). Divergent Paths of Postcommunist Democracies. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political Parties and Democracy (pp. 299–323). Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kopecký, P., Mair, P., & Spirova, M. (2012). Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kopecký, P., & Spirova, M. (2011). ‘Jobs for the Boys’? Patterns of Party Patronage in Post-communist Europe. West European Politics, 34(5), 897–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linek, L. (2007). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 46(7–8), 929–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linek, L. (2008). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 47(7–8), 947–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Linek, L. (2011). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(7–8), 948–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Linek, L. (2014). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 53(1), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linek, L., & Lacina, T. (2010). Czech Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 49(7–8), 939–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lucaciu, L. O. (2012). Romania. Expert Evaluation Network. Bucharest: LIDEEA. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/expert_innovation/2012_een_task2_ro.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  47. Lucaciu, L. O. (2013). Romania. Expert Evaluation Network. Bucharest: LIDEEA. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/2013_een_task2_ro.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  48. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2004). Civil Service Reform in Post-communist Europe: The Bumpy Road to Depoliticisation. West European Politics, 27(1), 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2009). Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years After EU Accession (Sigma Paper No. 44). Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/sustainability-of-civil-service-reforms-in-central-and-eastern-europe-five-years-after-eu-accession_5kml60pvjmbq-en. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  50. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., & Veen, T. (2012). Governing the Post-communist State: Government Alternation and Senior Civil Service Politicisation in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Politics, 28(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Motyl, A. J. (2004). Communist Legacies and New Trajectories: Democracy and Dictatorship in the Former Soviet Union and East Central Europe. In Y. Brudny, J. Frankel, & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Restructuring Post-communist Russia (pp. 52–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pop, R., Doroftei, I. M., & Dimulescu, V. (2013). Risks of Corruption and the Management of EU Funds in Romania. Romanian Journal of Political Sciences, 13(1): 101–123.Google Scholar
  53. RO. (2007). OP Transport 2007–2013. National Strategic Reference Framework. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania. Available at http://old.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-62/Doc_prog/prog_op/5_POST/2_POST_Eng.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  54. RO. (2009). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2008. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  55. RO. (2010a). A Formative Evaluation of Structural Instruments in Romania: Final Report. Conducting Evaluations for the Period 2009–10. Bucharest: Ministry of Public Finance, Romania. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/library/romania/1010_formative_nsrf_eval_en.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  56. RO. (2010b). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2009. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  57. RO. (2011a). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2010. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  58. RO. (2011b). Second Ad Hoc Evaluation: Review of Investment in Transport and Environment Infrastructure: Final Report. Conducting Evaluations for the Period 2009–10. Bucharest: Ministry of Public Finance, Romania. Available at http://www.evaluare-structurale.ro/ro/list-viewreports-menu/details/8/31/rapoarte-evaluare-second-ad-hoc-evaluation-review-of-investment-in-transport-and-environment-infrastructure. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  59. RO. (2012a). Government of Romania: Nota de Fundamentare HG nr.1200/04.12.2012. Available at http://gov.ro/ro/guvernul/procesul-legislativ/note-de-fundamentare/nota-de-fundamentare-hg-nr-1200-04-12-2012&page=738. Accessed 20 Dec 2015.
  60. RO. (2012b). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2011. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  61. RO. (2013). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2012. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  62. RO. (2014). Raportul Anual de Implementare 2013. Annual Implementation Report. Bucharest: Ministry of Transport, Romania.Google Scholar
  63. RO. (2015a). Government of Romania: General Transport Master Plan, Approved by the Government. Available at http://gov.ro/en/government/cabinet-meeting/general-transport-master-plan-approved-by-the-government. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  64. RO. (2015b). Ministry of EU Funds. Romania: Prezentare MFE. Available at http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/minister/prezentare. Accessed 18 Feb 2016.
  65. RO1. (2015). Interview in Bucharest with Romanian Official on 15 June 2015.Google Scholar
  66. RO2. (2015). Interview in Bucharest with Romanian Official on 20 June 2015.Google Scholar
  67. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Multi-method Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2016). Case Studies Nested in Fuzzy-Set QCA on Sufficiency. Formalizing Case Selection and Causal Inference. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 526–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stan, L. (2013). Romania. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 52(1), 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stan, L., & Zaharia, R. (2009). Romania. European Journal of Political Research, 48(7–8), 1087–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stan, L., & Zaharia, R. (2010). Romania. European Journal of Political Research, 49(7–8), 1139–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stan, L., & Zaharia, R. (2011). Romania. European Journal of Political Research, 50(7–8), 1108–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vachudova, M. A. (2005). Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage, and Integration After Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  77. World Bank. (2010). Romania: Transport Sector: Final Report. Functional Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2010/10/17055950/romania-functional-review-transport-sector. Accessed 29 May 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hagemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations