This chapter presents Croatia's experience with the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), which was pivotal in preparing the country for the European Union (EU) membership. Croatia, still the EU's newest Member State, acceded in 2013 after an extensive and complex negotiation process that involved new chapters, methodologies, and the participation of numerous Member States. The chapter highlights that, although IPA contributed to enhancing administrative capacity, mainly through staff training and the development of institutional structures, the limited financial scope of pre-accession programmes restricted their broader impact. Despite these contributions, the fragmented nature of IPA projects and the need for a comprehensive reform perspective hampered Croatia's ability to address more profound structural challenges. Key external and internal challenges, including frequent revisions to pre-accession programmes, complex procurement rules, the 2009 economic recession, and insufficient institutional capacity, further complicated the effectiveness of IPA assistance. While Croatia eventually adapted to EU procedures and demonstrated its capacity to absorb post-accession funds, many administrative and coordination issues remained unresolved. The conclusion is that while IPA assistance contributed to Croatia's ability to manage EU funds, its design limitations and lack of integration into broader national reforms limited its long-term effectiveness.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Experience with Implementation of IPA Assistance—Was Croatia a Success Story?

  • Jakša Puljiz,
  • Matea Roknić

摘要

This chapter presents Croatia's experience with the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), which was pivotal in preparing the country for the European Union (EU) membership. Croatia, still the EU's newest Member State, acceded in 2013 after an extensive and complex negotiation process that involved new chapters, methodologies, and the participation of numerous Member States. The chapter highlights that, although IPA contributed to enhancing administrative capacity, mainly through staff training and the development of institutional structures, the limited financial scope of pre-accession programmes restricted their broader impact. Despite these contributions, the fragmented nature of IPA projects and the need for a comprehensive reform perspective hampered Croatia's ability to address more profound structural challenges. Key external and internal challenges, including frequent revisions to pre-accession programmes, complex procurement rules, the 2009 economic recession, and insufficient institutional capacity, further complicated the effectiveness of IPA assistance. While Croatia eventually adapted to EU procedures and demonstrated its capacity to absorb post-accession funds, many administrative and coordination issues remained unresolved. The conclusion is that while IPA assistance contributed to Croatia's ability to manage EU funds, its design limitations and lack of integration into broader national reforms limited its long-term effectiveness.