At the same time, in countries in transition there is a distinct need for the involvement of citizens and civil society in the oversight over public finances as a consequence of insufficiently developed external mechanisms of control and non-affirmed concept of financial government accountability. This Study, leaning on the extensive comparative practices and domestic experiences, […]

At the same time, in countries in transition there is a distinct need for the involvement of citizens and civil society in the oversight over public finances as a consequence of insufficiently developed external mechanisms of control and non-affirmed concept of financial government accountability. This Study, leaning on the extensive comparative practices and domestic experiences, researches the possibility for intersecting those needs in context of external audit in the Republic of Serbia and provides readymade recommendations for the State Audit Institution in Serbia for ensuring involvement of citizens and civil society in the external audit process.

This policy brief was published with CEP Study, written by Milena Lazarević, Nebojša Lazarević, Amanda Orza, Miloš Đinđić and Svelana Đuković.

Članak Civil Society and Citizens in the External Audit Process se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

The objective of this study is to shed light on the relevance of policy making and coordination for EU membership negotiations as well as negotiations within the Council of the EU after accession, in hope of creating a stronger incentive for domestic policy makers to address the deficiencies of these systems as early as possible in the accession process.

Članak Policy Making and EU Accession Negotiations se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

The Commission First Vice-President responsible for inter alia the better regulation portfolio, introduced five proposals under the Better Regulation Package – a proposal for an Inter-Institutional Agreement; communications on Better Regulation, Regulatory Scrutiny Board, and REFIT; as well as extensive guidelines on better regulation and impact assessments (IAs).
The Serbian Public Policy Secretariat of the Republic could take up valuable lessons from the Commission’s recent efforts at reform, particularly in terms of stakeholder participation in the process. This article will go through the main changes that the packages bring to conclude on their feasibility in the near future, and relevance to Serbia.

4:57

The 2015 Enlargement Package

Članak Better Regulation Package se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

We hear a lot about Commissioners and MEPs reinventing themselves into lobbyists and working for the private sector following the end of their mandate. We also hear a lot about the influence that the corporate interests have on European Union policies with little regard for the common citizen.

But is it all as bad as it is covered?

The Serbian state and non-state players now have the benefit of previous experiences and the do’s and don’ts of lobbying behavior as well as the opportunity to test and improve their strategies prior to membership when it will start to count on a much larger scale.

Članak Lobbying in the EU Demystified se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Up to this point, the issue of a systemic approach to civil society participation in the process of policy making in Serbia has not been resolved.

In its last Progress Report, the European Commission notes that “civil society is a crucial component of any democratic system and should be recognized and treated as such by the state institutions”. Notably, the EU has leverage to emphasize civil society participation mainly in relation to the accession process. Beyond this sphere, the resources and expertise of the civil society should be recognized and taken advantage of by the government and other public institutions. This is supported by the increasing complexity of the course of reforms, the challenge of legislative harmonization, and the lack of human capacity in the public administration as part of the EU integration process. In this regard, substantial effort needs to be invested to assure an evidence basis from the beginning of the planning of a policy, which is the basis of a sound and comprehensive reform.

Članak Civil society and Government: Participatory Policy Formulation in Serbia se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Namely, it is argued that participatory governance would introduce otherwise marginalized social groups into the policy making arena and enhance the transparency, openness, responsiveness, and accountability of government, consequently advancing the rule of law. More specifically, it is not merely limited to activism, pressure and advocacy but reaches into the promotion of institutionalised mechanisms of citizen participation in policy and decision making that will channel societal influence in adequate manner. It is considered that participatory mechanisms will create the necessary space for citizen participation, consequently ensuring sustainability and irreversibility of the participative process which bestows the citizens with a greater role in government work. As a result, participatory mechanisms are deemed complement representative democracy and contribute to the establishment of participatory institutions.

Turning to the European Union, the last decade was permeated by a debate on a ‘legitimacy crisis’ and a ‘democratic deficit’ and efforts aiming to advance representative democracy, which in return eventually turned the focus to the civil society as a crucial actor promising to bring the added value resulting in a participative democracy and a shift from ‘government’ to governance’.[2] The Treaty of Lisbon is a case in point as it states that the Union founded on representative democracy is based on direct and indirect public participation and thereof extends the democratic model to incorporate a horizontal and vertical Civil Society Dialogue, the consultations of the European Commission with stakeholders, and European Citizens’ Initiative (Article 11 TEU). Likewise, the EU explicitly recognizes CSOs as “an inherit part of enabling participatory democracy” that “create[s] demand for enhanced transparency, accountability and effectiveness from public institutions and facilitate[s] a greater focus on the needs of citizens in policy making.”

The European Commission (EC) in particular argues for “the inclusion of organized societal interests in the informal decision-making procedures” as part of its progressive activation strategy aiming to devise access points for civil society actors predominantly in supranational policy formulation laid out in the European Governance White Paper, a landmark document in the incremental evolution of involving civil society in EU policy making.[4] Moreover, the White Paper states the general necessity to stimulate active participation and meet citizens’ needs and expectations through enhanced quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policy, in order to “create more confidence in the end-result and in the institutions which deliver policies. In this view, it is worth noting the online consultation system operationalized through the website “Your Voice in Europe” that calls for consultations, discussions, and other tools for expression of views during the Commissions’ policy formulation phase.

Policy making is one of the core questions of the EU accession process which has not been properly understood to a large extent and was therefore undermined in Serbia, as noted in CEP’s previous endeavours. At the onset of the negotiations process, there is a notable growing focus on the part of the EC in respect to “the sustainability, efficiency and consistency of policy making aspects of horizontal governance reforms.” In this light, policy formulation i.e. the initial phase of the policy cycle is denoted across literature as having a strong influence on the final policy outcome and thus, having a greater impact in policy shaping than the final stages.[7] As CEP’s Study showed, policy formulation is specifically underdeveloped and has not been tackled accordingly as its importance was insufficiently recognized. This characteristic along with the over-emphasis on the legal drafting phase as the primary “go to” policy solution without the necessary preceding  analysis  and  assessment has negative implications for all other stages of the policy cycle and consequently diminishes the quality, responsiveness, and sustainability of the final policy output.

What is more, policy formulation is envisaged to necessarily incorporate not only inter-ministerial consultations but also consultations with the public. Speaking from a normative perspective, consultations with non-state stakeholders should be initiated in the inception phases of the policy process. In such a manner the decision on the policy option will be based on evidence stemming from a wide range of information sources in order for the particular viewpoints of the concerned stakeholders to be considered and incorporated in the process of policy formulation. Conversely, a survey conducted by the Civic Initiatives, illustrates the majority of CSOs deem that they are not impacting the formulation of state policies to a satisfactory degree, while the crucial role of informal contacts is one of the problems inhibiting cooperation with state which was emphasised. Since policy analysis is understood as a “client-oriented advice relevant to public decisions and informed by social values,” CEP has argued for “the collection of data that goes beyond stakeholder consultations and expert research […] to make the policy in stake more responsive” which is in line with the academic perspective proposing input legitimacy.

Even though it is not an explicit requirement, based on the experience of the Eastern enlargement, the EU places an added emphasis on the role of civil society in European integration. Particularly in the accession negotiation process the EC heralds a partnership between civil society and the state through dialogue and cooperation, based on willingness, trust and mutual acknowledgment around common interests, particularly seen as necessary for the implementation of EU legislation. Namely, according to the Commission’s Enlargement Strategy, the EU aims to through inter alia financial and capacity building assistance encourage and foster an environment conducive to CSO activities, raise CSO capacities and promote their role so as to become actively involved in the policy and law making processes.

It is indisputably relevant to provide adequate access points and participation mechanisms for civil society contributions in the negotiations process, but the focus should also be turned to the policy making system which is essential for the country’s success not only mid-term i.e. accession negotiations, but also upon becoming a fully-fledged EU member state. In other words, it is in the candidate country’s interest to build a robust policy making system in the light of the experiences and good practices of EU member states also in the sense of CSO participation, as the ultimate goal is not to merely achieve EU membership but to become a respected, consistent and well-functioning member state on the EU multilevel policy making plane.

Članak CSO Participation in Policy Making se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

If Serbia is to approach European Union accession as a process of becoming a capable and credible member state and not simply as a project of achieving membership status, it will need to thoroughly reform its policy making system.

In order to “speak with a single voice” in the complex EU policy arena, as well as reap the benefits of EU membership to the maximum (and not lose out instead) Serbia will need to ensure that the positions it presents in Brussels are based on sound, well-analysed, wellevidenced and well coordinated policies. In its endeavour to achieve this end, Serbia can learn much from the policy making and coordination practices of the UK, France, Poland and Latvia – all successful member states in different ways and for different reasons, but all similar in that they approach the design and coordination of their policies towards Brussels with much care. The objective of this study is to shed light on the relevance of policy making and coordination for EU membership negotiations as well as negotiations within the Council of the EU after accession, in hope of creating a stronger incentive for domestic policy makers to address the deficiencies of these systems as early as possible in the accession process.

Članak Policy making and EU accession negotiations se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

At the same time, in countries in transition there is a distinct need for the involvement of citizens and civil society in the oversight over public finances as a consequence of insufficiently developed external mechanisms of control and non-affirmed concept of financial government accountability. This Study, leaning on the extensive comparative practices and domestic experiences, researches the possibility for intersecting those needs in context of external audit in the Republic of Serbia and provides readymade recommendations for the State Audit Institution in Serbia for ensuring involvement of citizens and civil society in the external audit process.

The authors of this Study are Milena Lazarević, Nebojša Lazarević, Amanda Orza, Miloš Đinđić and Svelana Đuković.

Članak Civil Society and Citizens in the External Audit Process se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.