格鲁吉亚的欧盟一体化协调:协调模式的演变与权变因素

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Nino Dolidze, Giorgi Bobghiashvili, Eka Akobia
{"title":"格鲁吉亚的欧盟一体化协调:协调模式的演变与权变因素","authors":"Nino Dolidze, Giorgi Bobghiashvili, Eka Akobia","doi":"10.2478/nispa-2023-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper compiles a single case study on the national EU integration coordination in Georgia since 1991 to date. The paper aims to ground Georgia’s case in the existing academic literature with a detailed case description and testing of the EU integration coordination mechanisms in Georgia based on theories and models in the PA literature. Georgia’s coordination mechanisms are assessed against external incentives, such as ‘socialisation’ v. ‘conditionality’ (Schimmelfennig, 2009), and classified in terms of Kassim’s (2003) system of national coordination. The paper describes five distinct periods in the evolution of EU integration coordination formats: the first encounter (1991-1999); the silhouettes of coordination (1999-2004); the deliberate coordination (2004-2014); the pragmatic coordination (2014-2022) and the coordination limbo (2022 to date). EU integration coordination structures from 2004 to 2014 are likened to a comprehensive centraliser - with the centre being the driving force of the entire coordination process, with all the issues or thematic areas being depicted in respective planning documents. Since 2014, the country’s approach has been compared to that of a selective centraliser, since Georgia shows signs of selectiveness in its ambitions to deliver on a nationally agreed EU policy outcome. The paper finds that, unlike prevalent patterns in EU integration coordination, the relative stagnation of the EU coordination process happens after the accession; in Georgia, this has occurred during the onset of the conditionality stage, which makes this an outlier case. In assessing the reasons for the weakening of the process of coordination, this case supports findings that the actor-centric approach is vital to explaining the coordination efforts (Dimitrova & Toshkov, 2007; Fink-Hafner, 2013). The paper concludes that a significant improvement of existing EU integration coordination structures is needed to build a comprehensive approach, reinforced with horizontal coordination and networking, to construct an agreed and inclusive EU integration coordination.","PeriodicalId":43378,"journal":{"name":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors\",\"authors\":\"Nino Dolidze, Giorgi Bobghiashvili, Eka Akobia\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/nispa-2023-0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper compiles a single case study on the national EU integration coordination in Georgia since 1991 to date. The paper aims to ground Georgia’s case in the existing academic literature with a detailed case description and testing of the EU integration coordination mechanisms in Georgia based on theories and models in the PA literature. Georgia’s coordination mechanisms are assessed against external incentives, such as ‘socialisation’ v. ‘conditionality’ (Schimmelfennig, 2009), and classified in terms of Kassim’s (2003) system of national coordination. The paper describes five distinct periods in the evolution of EU integration coordination formats: the first encounter (1991-1999); the silhouettes of coordination (1999-2004); the deliberate coordination (2004-2014); the pragmatic coordination (2014-2022) and the coordination limbo (2022 to date). EU integration coordination structures from 2004 to 2014 are likened to a comprehensive centraliser - with the centre being the driving force of the entire coordination process, with all the issues or thematic areas being depicted in respective planning documents. Since 2014, the country’s approach has been compared to that of a selective centraliser, since Georgia shows signs of selectiveness in its ambitions to deliver on a nationally agreed EU policy outcome. The paper finds that, unlike prevalent patterns in EU integration coordination, the relative stagnation of the EU coordination process happens after the accession; in Georgia, this has occurred during the onset of the conditionality stage, which makes this an outlier case. In assessing the reasons for the weakening of the process of coordination, this case supports findings that the actor-centric approach is vital to explaining the coordination efforts (Dimitrova & Toshkov, 2007; Fink-Hafner, 2013). The paper concludes that a significant improvement of existing EU integration coordination structures is needed to build a comprehensive approach, reinforced with horizontal coordination and networking, to construct an agreed and inclusive EU integration coordination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2023-0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2023-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文汇编了自 1991 年至今格鲁吉亚国家欧盟一体化协调的单一案例研究。本文旨在以现有学术文献为基础,根据 PA 文献中的理论和模型,对格鲁吉亚的欧盟一体化协调机制进行详细的案例描述和测试。本文根据外部激励机制,如 "社会化 "与 "条件性"(Schimmelfennig,2009 年),对格鲁吉亚的协调机制进行了评估,并根据卡西姆(Kassim,2003 年)的国家协调体系对其进行了分类。本文描述了欧盟一体化协调形式演变的五个不同时期:初次相遇(1991-1999 年);协调剪影(1999-2004 年);深思熟虑的协调(2004-2014 年);务实的协调(2014-2022 年)和协调僵局(2022 年至今)。2004 年至 2014 年的欧盟一体化协调结构被比作一个全面的中央集权机构--中央是整个协调过程的推动力,所有问题或主题领域都在各自的规划文件中有所描述。自 2014 年以来,格鲁吉亚的做法被比作选择性集权者,因为格鲁吉亚在实现国家商定的欧盟政策成果的雄心壮志方面表现出选择性迹象。本文发现,与欧盟一体化协调的普遍模式不同,欧盟协调进程的相对停滞发生在加入欧盟之后;在格鲁吉亚,这种停滞发生在附加条件阶段的开始,这使格鲁吉亚成为一个例外情况。在评估协调进程减弱的原因时,本案例支持以行动者为中心的方法对解释协调努力至关重要的研究结果(Dimitrova & Toshkov, 2007; Fink-Hafner, 2013)。本文的结论是,需要对现有的欧盟一体化协调结构进行重大改进,以建立一种全面的方法,并通过横向协调和网络建设予以加强,从而构建一种商定的、包容性的欧盟一体化协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors
The paper compiles a single case study on the national EU integration coordination in Georgia since 1991 to date. The paper aims to ground Georgia’s case in the existing academic literature with a detailed case description and testing of the EU integration coordination mechanisms in Georgia based on theories and models in the PA literature. Georgia’s coordination mechanisms are assessed against external incentives, such as ‘socialisation’ v. ‘conditionality’ (Schimmelfennig, 2009), and classified in terms of Kassim’s (2003) system of national coordination. The paper describes five distinct periods in the evolution of EU integration coordination formats: the first encounter (1991-1999); the silhouettes of coordination (1999-2004); the deliberate coordination (2004-2014); the pragmatic coordination (2014-2022) and the coordination limbo (2022 to date). EU integration coordination structures from 2004 to 2014 are likened to a comprehensive centraliser - with the centre being the driving force of the entire coordination process, with all the issues or thematic areas being depicted in respective planning documents. Since 2014, the country’s approach has been compared to that of a selective centraliser, since Georgia shows signs of selectiveness in its ambitions to deliver on a nationally agreed EU policy outcome. The paper finds that, unlike prevalent patterns in EU integration coordination, the relative stagnation of the EU coordination process happens after the accession; in Georgia, this has occurred during the onset of the conditionality stage, which makes this an outlier case. In assessing the reasons for the weakening of the process of coordination, this case supports findings that the actor-centric approach is vital to explaining the coordination efforts (Dimitrova & Toshkov, 2007; Fink-Hafner, 2013). The paper concludes that a significant improvement of existing EU integration coordination structures is needed to build a comprehensive approach, reinforced with horizontal coordination and networking, to construct an agreed and inclusive EU integration coordination.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信