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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy 2023-12, Vol.16 (2), p.55-81 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 81 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 55 |
container_title | NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Dolidze, Nino Bobghiashvili, Giorgi Akobia, Eka |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2478/nispa-2023-0013 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2902463522</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2902463522</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-dbcd72f7be788b0b96606341d84a06d57f0c02a866a3d896b8406ac7e4a68c673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LwzAYxoMoOObOXgOe69IkTVLxImObg4kXdw5pk86MmswkVfbf262CevC9vB88z_PCD4DrHN1iysXU2bhXGUaYZAjl5AyMckJERgkqz3_Nl2AS4w71RTAXtBiBar6BK5fMNqhkvYMz74O2blisg0vjw9aqOzj_8G13uvoGplfzV_nktWmhcro_u2Td1rgEF6pOPsQrcNGoNprJdx-DzWL-MnvM1s_L1exhndUk5ynTVa05bnhluBAVqkrGECM014IqxHTBG1QjrARjimhRskpQxFTNDVVM1IyTMbgZcvfBv3cmJrnzXXD9S4lLhCkjBca9ajqo6uBjDKaR-2DfVDjIHMkjS3liKY8s5ZFl77gfHJ-qTSbonlV36Ief-H-cOcNFQb4A3vt8EQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2902463522</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Walter De Gruyter: Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Sciendo</source><creator>Dolidze, Nino ; Bobghiashvili, Giorgi ; Akobia, Eka</creator><creatorcontrib>Dolidze, Nino ; Bobghiashvili, Giorgi ; Akobia, Eka</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1338-4309</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1337-9038</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1338-4309</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2478/nispa-2023-0013</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bratislava: Sciendo</publisher><subject>Accession ; Case studies ; Coordination ; coordination models ; EU integration coordination ; Georgia’s EU coordination structures ; horizontal coordination ; Networking ; Single case studies ; Socialization ; Stagnation ; vertical coordination</subject><ispartof>NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy, 2023-12, Vol.16 (2), p.55-81</ispartof><rights>2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-dbcd72f7be788b0b96606341d84a06d57f0c02a866a3d896b8406ac7e4a68c673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/nispa-2023-0013$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/nispa-2023-0013$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,27924,27925,76164,76165</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dolidze, Nino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobghiashvili, Giorgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akobia, Eka</creatorcontrib><title>EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors</title><title>NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy</title><description>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.</description><subject>Accession</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Coordination</subject><subject>coordination models</subject><subject>EU integration coordination</subject><subject>Georgia’s EU coordination structures</subject><subject>horizontal coordination</subject><subject>Networking</subject><subject>Single case studies</subject><subject>Socialization</subject><subject>Stagnation</subject><subject>vertical coordination</subject><issn>1338-4309</issn><issn>1337-9038</issn><issn>1338-4309</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LwzAYxoMoOObOXgOe69IkTVLxImObg4kXdw5pk86MmswkVfbf262CevC9vB88z_PCD4DrHN1iysXU2bhXGUaYZAjl5AyMckJERgkqz3_Nl2AS4w71RTAXtBiBar6BK5fMNqhkvYMz74O2blisg0vjw9aqOzj_8G13uvoGplfzV_nktWmhcro_u2Td1rgEF6pOPsQrcNGoNprJdx-DzWL-MnvM1s_L1exhndUk5ynTVa05bnhluBAVqkrGECM014IqxHTBG1QjrARjimhRskpQxFTNDVVM1IyTMbgZcvfBv3cmJrnzXXD9S4lLhCkjBca9ajqo6uBjDKaR-2DfVDjIHMkjS3liKY8s5ZFl77gfHJ-qTSbonlV36Ief-H-cOcNFQb4A3vt8EQ</recordid><startdate>20231201</startdate><enddate>20231201</enddate><creator>Dolidze, Nino</creator><creator>Bobghiashvili, Giorgi</creator><creator>Akobia, Eka</creator><general>Sciendo</general><general>De Gruyter Poland</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231201</creationdate><title>EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors</title><author>Dolidze, Nino ; Bobghiashvili, Giorgi ; Akobia, Eka</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-dbcd72f7be788b0b96606341d84a06d57f0c02a866a3d896b8406ac7e4a68c673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Accession</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Coordination</topic><topic>coordination models</topic><topic>EU integration coordination</topic><topic>Georgia’s EU coordination structures</topic><topic>horizontal coordination</topic><topic>Networking</topic><topic>Single case studies</topic><topic>Socialization</topic><topic>Stagnation</topic><topic>vertical coordination</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dolidze, Nino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobghiashvili, Giorgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akobia, Eka</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dolidze, Nino</au><au>Bobghiashvili, Giorgi</au><au>Akobia, Eka</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors</atitle><jtitle>NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy</jtitle><date>2023-12-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>55</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>55-81</pages><issn>1338-4309</issn><issn>1337-9038</issn><eissn>1338-4309</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Bratislava</cop><pub>Sciendo</pub><doi>10.2478/nispa-2023-0013</doi><tpages>27</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1338-4309 |
ispartof | NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy, 2023-12, Vol.16 (2), p.55-81 |
issn | 1338-4309 1337-9038 1338-4309 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2902463522 |
source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Walter De Gruyter: Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Sciendo |
subjects | Accession Case studies Coordination coordination models EU integration coordination Georgia’s EU coordination structures horizontal coordination Networking Single case studies Socialization Stagnation vertical coordination |
title | EU Integration Coordination in Georgia: Evolution of the Coordination Model and Contingent Factors |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T09%3A07%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EU%20Integration%20Coordination%20in%20Georgia:%20Evolution%20of%20the%20Coordination%20Model%20and%20Contingent%20Factors&rft.jtitle=NISPAcee%20journal%20of%20public%20administration%20and%20policy&rft.au=Dolidze,%20Nino&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=55&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=55-81&rft.issn=1338-4309&rft.eissn=1338-4309&rft_id=info:doi/10.2478/nispa-2023-0013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2902463522%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2902463522&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |