1. Commissioning education services delivery at a cross-road: towards a paradigm shift in public and third sector relations Roxana Georgiana Radu Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, University of Geneva Grassroots Europe for Local Wellbeing Budapest (7-9 October 2011)

2. Civil society in CEE  dual conception of CSOs is characteristic for the region: (1) third sector (TS) as an expression of civil society; (2) TS as “an extension of central and local government”  The term “civil society” re-emerged with the dissident movements in the late 1970s, was originally understood as a self-organizing alternative society or a “parallel polis” (Vaclav Benda 1978) – underground society representing a plurality of interests  distinction between “old NGOs”, remnants from the previous regime, as opposed to the “new CSOs”, established after 1989  International donors started to pull out of the region at the end of 1990s – now government-driven agenda  Simultaneous reforms (legislation, education, etc.)

3. EU level  EU: distinction between “operational CSOs” (service delivery) and “advocacy CSOs” (strive to impact governmental policies) – service delivery CSOs only appeared in the region after the fall of communism  Directive 15915/05 of the Council of the European Union established 1.045% of EU 27 GNI as a maximum expenditure figure for public service delivery for the period comprised between 2007 and 2013 for all member states (around 862 billion EUR). Up to 10% represents public service delivery expenditure by public-private partnerships and outsourcing -- CSOs in CEE had direct access to EU funding for the first time

4. Common features - CEE countries o Similar history, rather similar starting point (1990, 2004/2007)  Influence of European models in regulation  EU’s interest in the third sector in the region increased over the years  Definition of non-governmental organization – term legally introduced in 1997 (Ro, Po)  Unhealthy dependency on state resources  changing with the advent of structural funds (in Ro, in 2009, 18.6% of the financing sources were non-reimbursable grants from EU, while the public authorities only contributed with 4.9% of all funds )

5. Consequences  With the requirement for a national contribution to complement the Structural Funds, collaboration between CSOs may tend to favour two types of relationships: (1) Among CSOs: creating coalitions of large organizations (2) With the state: CSOs in prior contractual relations with the government may be favoured  Emergence of a new role for the state, as the beneficiary, the financier, the evaluator, and the decision-maker in the provision of outsourced educational services  Capabilities of CSOs at stake – bureaucratic procedures require substantial resources to be allocated to the application writing process

6. Thank you!