Creating a Regional Policy Network from Tabula Rasa

Creating a Regional Policy Network from Tabula Rasa in Bulgaria: the Beginning Antoinette Primatarova and Georgy Ganev, CLS SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

Brief Outline • Bulgarian regional policy overview – A short history – Present policy-making structure – The 2007 -2013 programming phase in the selected region in practice • Profile of the Region • Social Network Analysis of the region – Quantitative results of four aspects of the network: • • The basic network of reported contacts The network of contacts related to EU funding The network of reported informal relationships The network of influence attribution – Qualitative analysis. Evaluation of the learning/administrative capacity of the institutional infrastructure • Conclusions – EU and Bulgarian regional policies SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

Bulgarian regional policy: a short history • 1959 -1987: stable districts around District Communist Party Secretaries – Today’s NUTS 3 districts are exactly the same • 1987 -1998: redefinition and counter-redefinition – Political changes deemphasize districts, legitimize municipalities; de facto no regions • State of affairs at the end of 20 th century: Tabula Rasa – No regions – No regional policies – No regional policy-making traditions, procedures, bodies, powers. • The 21 st century: – Regions reintroduced because of EU, and for no other reason – Initially regions have no personnel, no budgets, no powers – So irrelevant, nobody noticed the drastic 2006 changes SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

Regional Policymaking Structure in Bulgaria • Financial Centralization – Constitutional amendment for fiscal decentralization 2007 – further legislation pending • Except at the center, administrative capacity to make and implement policy is limited at all levels – 265 municipalities – self-government, with limited discretion, competencies and resource base – 28 districts – de-concentrated administrations of the central government; no elective bodies; governors appointed by government – 6 NUTS II level regions – planning regions (established in 2000; revised in 2006); no own administration; no own resources; consultative bodies acting on initiative of the central government SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

The 2007 -2013 programming phase in the selected region in practice • The envisaged role of the Region, esp. the Regional Development Council, is rich – Yet, under the supervision of the Ministry (Regional Development and Management Systems Directorate) and the Council of Ministers • The partnership principle is well designed at all three sub -national levels: municipal, district, and regional • The RDC has only recently been formed • In practice, the basic programming documents for 20072013 (NSRF and OPRD): – were only marginally based on the regional strategy and plans – were centrally prepared in the Ministry, so – de facto, the input of the regional policy network was very limited SOCCOH 3 rd Project Workshop Prague, 2007 -06 -22

Profile of the South Central Region • Geography and society: – Relatively large population, socially diverse, geographically diverse, border with Greece and Turkey • Economy – Second biggest in Bulgaria, among the poorest, but also among the fastest catching-up, highest share of industry (30 %) in the country, average but unevenly distributed unemployment • Politics – No regional self-government and politics – So, all politics come from the local or national level • Major developmental challenges besides catching-up – – Integration of minorities, esp. Roma Policies towards remote communities Environmental standards, esp. given high share of polluting industry Infrastructure, esp. for transit SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA results – major actors • • Survey – 44 surveys, of which 35 face-to-face interviews Actors – Central government: • • • Parliamentary committee Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works Managing Authority Ministry of Finance Line ministries – Regional actors • • Regional unit of managing authority Regional development council District governors District development councils – Local actors • • Mayors – of district centers and of other municipalities Municipal councils – of district centers and of other municipalities – Civil society actors • • • Trade unions Business and employer organizations Non-government organizations SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA quantitative result – basic network • Density – Binary edges – 0. 87 – Valued edges – 1. 45 • Centrality – – – SOCCOH Final Conference In-degree – 17 % Out-degree – 23 % Betweenness – 0. 9 % In-closeness – 23 % Out-closeness – 24 % Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA quantitative result – basic network structural equivalence • Structural equivalence with CONCOR – – 4 second level categories, 7 third level groupings Civil society vs. the rest, trade unions aloof District centers group Ministerial group with small municipality connections SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA quantitative result – EU-funding network • Density: 0. 12 • Centrality – Degree – 70 % – Betweenness – 16 % • Central actors – MRDPW – Other municipal councils (? ) SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA quantitative result – informal network • Density: 0. 19 • Centrality – Degree – 52 % – Betweenness – 15 % • Central actors – – SOCCOH Final Conference District governors District dev councils RDC Mininstry of Finance Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA quantitative result – influence attribution network • Density: 0. 30 • Centrality – Degree – 51 % – Betweenness – 28 % • Central actors – – SOCCOH Final Conference MRDPW Ministry of Finance Line ministries Trade unions (? ) Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA qualitative results – institutional learning capacity • Dialogue and negotiation – the major points of negotiation are the RDC and the Regional Unit. – Both underdeveloped, but with prospects (“We are all learning”) • Adaptation – Informal links will develop, uninhibited by old ones – Pressure from decentralization and separation of regional operating programs • • PPPs – it is still civil society vs. the rest. So far lipservice only Common understanding of major issues – Laundry lists vs. strategic priorities and programming – Timing problems this time around recognized – Willingness for better performance clearly present • Policy adaptation – Very positive attitude – “this is the first time, we will be more precise next time” – All actors agree the policy-making process should get closer to the regions – Coordination of separate regional operating programs recognized as a problem SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA qualitative results – types of networks and centralization • Types of institutional networks – By design the policy-making network is still developing, and potentially should become very dense and not very centralized – In reality so far, the network is centralized in terms of informality and especially influence. The programming is recognized as having happened top-down • Central – local relations – Major development – fiscal decentralization, programming budgeting – Major decision ahead – regional layer of elected selfgovernment SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

SNA qualitative results – non-state actors • Recognized, but underutilized • Linkages and trust between newly created government actors and non-state actors need time – yet both sides confidently claim they will happen • Non-state actors can help regional development policy by linking it to other policies and/or private projects • Neighboring country’s regions are presently unimportant, but are enthusiastically recognized as potentially very useful by border municipalities and districts SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

Conlcusions – EU and Bulgarian regional policies 1 • In the case of Bulgaria the EU is by far the most important factor with respect to regional policy-making structures – No previous such experience in the country – EU is sole reason for having regions at all – The EU operating program for regional development is the major factor making the regional policy-making process move – Most of the future of regional policy-making and its structure is seen through the prism of EU regional development visions and funding SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11

Conlcusions – EU and Bulgarian regional policies 2 • EU is a major agent of change in Bulgarian governance structures – EU is pressing for regionalization in a traditionally centralized country – All actors recognize their contact with the EU as enhancing their understanding of policy-making, programming and project participation – EU policies spearhead the creation of regional structures – The EU can encourage this process by being less shy about contacting the regions directly rather than through the national government, so • Crucial in this respect is having separate regional operating programs for the 2014 -2020 planning period • Crucial national issue to be resolved: regional self-governance SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008 -01 -11