1. WP8: Corruption, assistance and development Prof
WP8: Corruption, assistance and development Prof. Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, 8 March 2014
Part 1: To provide an assessment on corruption’s impact on development by focusing on two key areas, namely infrastructure and fiscal deficits. Part 2: To assess systematically through governance indicators and case studies the impact of European conditionality on corruption in new EU member states, accession countries and ENP countries. Part 3: To engage in the policy evaluation and analysis of European funds meant to promote development (within and outside EU) and their impact on the governance of recipient countries. This part will draw on national fieldwork and comparative analysis on the formal and informal practices in the policy areas targeted by EU funds and suggest best practices and solutions to problems.

2. WP8 Description of Work
To organise a survey of EU-funded projects for infrastructure, looking at different time intervals in one older EU member state (Greece), two new EU member state (Hungary and Romania), two candidate countries (Croatia, Turkey) and one neighbourhood country (Ukraine) (HERTIE, UCL, ELIAMEP, BCE, SAR, HAT, PSD)
To document and test the association between governance improvement and EU funds for development, with a focus on the new governance facility, in the case of ENP countries by quantitative means (HERTIE) and in-depth case studies. Case selection is guided by the variation in the extent of anticorruption conditionality and covers: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Tunisia, Egypt, Ghana and Tanzania). All selected cases receive significant EU funds (PSD, IKS, CSD, BCE, UCL and GIGA)
To write policy report drawing on national fieldwork and comparative analysis on the formal and informal practices in the policy areas targeted by EU funds and suggest best practices and solutions to problems.

3. Deliverable
Date
Lead
Case
D8.1 Country policy reports on institutions in public procurement for the infrastructure sector
February 2015
HERTIE
D8.2 Case study reports on control of corruption and EU funds
February 2016
GIGA
D8.3 Policy paper drawing on previous studies with recommendations on governance conditionality
February 2017
MS6 Policy Paper: For a more effective link between EU funds and good governance

4. D8.1 Country policy reports on institutions in public procurement for the infrastructure sector
Case
Partner
Deadline
[older EU member state]
30 November 2014
[new EU member state]
[EU candidate state]
[EU neighbourhood state]

5. D8.2 Case study reports on control of corruption and EU funds
Partner
Deadline
Bosnia-Herzegovina
30 November 2015
Kosovo
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Tunisia
Egypt
Ghana
Tanzania

6. WP8 Dissemination activities
Data visualization of procurement risk on Hungary
WORKSHOPS:
Institutions in public Procurement for the Infrastructure Sector (Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Hungary)
Links Between EU Funds and Good Governance (Bulgaria, Greece)

7. Basic data we need to gather
Procurement volume per country (triangulated) as % of GDP and if possible breakdown national/local
% distributed competitively

8. Dependent variable: govt favoritism
ASSESSMENT How systematic is (versus exceptional) – DATA MINING
WEIGHT How big a role do govt contracts play in the market? (e.g. % construction market) - DOCUMENTATION
PARTICULARISTIC LINK
How can we document that such contracts are politically granted (INVESTIGATION, SNA)

9. Documentation resources
Procurement allocations
Top 100 businesspeople
Register of Commerce
Public companies boards and other sinecures
Debt bailouts for companies by government?

10. D2. EU funds and corruption
How do EU funds impact corruption?
How do EU anticorruption strategies work to
Protect EU funds
Improve overall governance
What can be done about it?