Creating a Regional Policy Network from Tabula Rasa in Bulgaria: the Beginning

1. 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

2. 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

3. Bulgarian regional policy: a short history • 1959-1987: stable districts around District Communist Party Secretaries • Today’s NUTS3 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 20th century: Tabula Rasa • No regions • No regional policies • No regional policy-making traditions, procedures, bodies, powers. • The 21st 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

4. 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

5. 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 2007-2013 (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 3rd Project Workshop Prague, 2007-06-22

6. 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

7. 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

8. SNA quantitative result – basic network • Density • Binary edges – 0.87 • Valued edges – 1.45 • Centrality • In-degree – 17 % • Out-degree – 23 % • Betweenness – 0.9 % • In-closeness – 23 % • Out-closeness – 24 % SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008-01-11

9. 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

10. 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

11. SNA quantitative result – informal network • Density: 0.19 • Centrality • Degree – 52 % • Betweenness – 15 % • Central actors • District governors • District dev councils • RDC • Mininstry of Finance SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008-01-11

12. SNA quantitative result – influence attribution network • Density: 0.30 • Centrality • Degree – 51 % • Betweenness – 28 % • Central actors • MRDPW • Ministry of Finance • Line ministries • Trade unions (?) SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008-01-11

13. 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

14. 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 self-government SOCCOH Final Conference Brussels, 2008-01-11

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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 the 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