EUROPEANIZATION OF UKRAINE’S EXECUTIVE POWER (Lessons of the Central and Eastern Europe’s EU Member States)
The article addresses main OECD SIGMA recommendations regarding national European Union (EU) policy co-ordination in Ukraine and provides relevant lessons from Latvia and other EU Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) Member States in addressing similar challenges from the EU pre-accession and post-accession experience.
Efficiency of a national policy co-ordination is one of the core determinants to succeed europeanization of a national core executive power and further integration with the EU. The OECD SIGMA Baseline Measurement Assessment Report on Principles of Public Administration in Ukraine published in June 2018 reveals important concerns in steering and co-ordination of some reform initiatives, overlapping competences of public bodies in co-ordinating policy planning and implementation monitoring of the Government’s performance in public sector reforms.
Effective implementation of national reforms is vital also in the terms of implementation of the Ukraine–EU Association Agreement (AA) that entered into force on September 1, 2017 and
Actual problems of international relations. Release 140. 2019
requires a high level of coordination in the Ukrainian government. Relevant national EU policy co-ordination experience of the EU CEE Member States is revisited as a possible lesson for Ukraine in implementation of essential structural reforms on the national level.
Key words: europeanization, Association Agreement, principles of public administration, national policy co-ordination, policy planning
1. Candel J. J. L. and Biesbroek R. (2016). ‘Toward a Processual Understanding of Policy Integration’, Policy Sciences 49: 211–231.
2. CMU (21 March 2018). ‘On the Improvement of the Monitoring System and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Implementation of the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine’, Resolution 12605/0/1-18.
3. CMU (31 May 2017). ‘On Issues of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Implementation of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the One Part, and Ukraine, of the Other Part’, Decision 447.
4. CMU (11 May 2016). ‘On The Governmental Committee on European, Euro-Atlantic Integration, International Co-operation and Regional Development’, Decision 330.
5. CMU (20 August 2014a). ‘On Adoption of the Statute of the Ministry of Finance’, Decision 375.
6. CMU (2 July 2014b). ‘On Adoption of the Statute of the Ministry of Justice’, Decision 228.
7. CMU (13 August 2014c). ‘On Adoption of the Statutes of the Government Office for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration’, Decision 346.
8. CMU (12 August 2009). ‘On Adoption of the Statute of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers’, Decision 850.
9. Dimitrova A. and Toshkov D. (2009). ‘Post-accession Compliance Between Administrative Co-ordination and Political Bargaining’, European Integration Online Papers, < http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-019a.htm>.
10. Hafner D. F. (2014). ‘Post-Accession Politicization of National EU Policy Coordination: The Case of Slovenia’, Public Administration 92, 1: 39–54.
11. Gäther L., Hörner J. and Obholzer L. (2011). ‘National Coordination of EU Policy: A Comparative Study of the Twelve “New” Member States’, Journal of Contemporary European Research 7, 1: 77–100.
12. Kassim H. (2003). ‘Meeting the Demands of EU Membership: The Europeanization of National Administrative Systems’, in Featherstone K. and Radaelli C. M. (eds.). The Politics of Europeanization, pp. 79-109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Kassim H. (2015). ‘The National Coordination of EU Policy’, in Magone J. M. (ed.). Routledge Handbook of European Politic, pp. 686-708. New York: Routledge.
14. Kassim H., Peters B. G. and Wright V. (eds.) (2000). ‘The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Laffan B. (2003). ‘Managing Europe from Home. Impact of the EU on Executive Government. A Comparative Analysis’, Occasional Paper. OEUR Phase I. Dublin European Institute: University College Dublin.
16. Lippert B. and Umbach G. (2005). ‘The Pressure of Europeanisation. From post-Communist state administration to normal players in the EU system’. Baden – Baden: Nomos.
17. Metcalfe L. (1994). ‘International Policy Co-ordination and Public Management Reform’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 60: 271–290.
18. OECD SIGMA (2018). ‘Baseline Measurement Report on Ukraine’ <http://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Baseline-Measurement-Report-2018-Ukraine.pdf > (checked 15 May 2019).
19. OECD SIGMA (2017a). ‘Methodological Framework for the Principles of Public Administration’, <http://sigmaweb.org/publications/Methodological-Framework-for-the-Principles-of-Public-Administration-November-2017.pdf> (checked 15 May 2019).
20. OECD SIGMA (2017b). ‘The Principles of Public Administration’, <http://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Principles-of-Public-Administration_Edition-2017_ENG.pdf > (checked 15 May 2019).
21. Panke D. (2010). ‘Good Instructions in No Time? Domestic Coordination of EU Polices in 19 Small States’, West European Politics 33, 4: 770-790.
22. Peters B. G. (2015). ‘Pursuing Horizontal Management: The Politics of Public Sector Coordination’. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
23. Rollis I. (2014). ‘National EU Policy Co-ordination in Latvia’, Latvijas Intereses Eiropas Savienībā 2: 79–103.
Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск 140. 2019. .
24. Scharpf F. W. (1994). ‘Games Real Actors Could Play: Positive and Negative Coordination in Embedded Negotiations’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 6: 27-53.
25. Ugur M. (2013). ‘Europeanization, EU Conditionality, and Governance Quality: Empirical Evidence on Central and Eastern European Countries’, International Studies Quarterly 57: 41–51.
26. World Bank (2019). ‘GDP per person (USD) in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine during 1995 – 2009’, <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator > (checked on 15 May 2019).
27. Zubek R. and Staronova K. (2012). ‘Organizing for EU Implementation: The Europeanization of Government Ministries in Estonia, Poland, and Slovenia’, Public Administration 90, 4: 937–956.