Institutional Barometer 2.0 November 2019
Institutional Barometer 2.0 November 2019

Author(s): Saša Đorđević, Zlata Đorđević, Gordana Grujičić, Tanja Ignjatović, Jasmina Krunić, Dušan Šabić
Subject(s): Politics / Political Sciences, Politics, EU-Approach / EU-Accession / EU-Development
Published by: BCBP Beogradski centar za bezbednosnu politiku
Keywords: European integration process; Serbia; Chapter 23 and Chapter 24
Summary/Abstract: With a view to monitoring the measurable effects of the reforms in the European integration process of the Republic of Serbia, the members of coalition prEUgovor have selected six institutions whose competences fall under Chapter 23 (Justice and Fundamental Rights) and Chapter 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security). To this end, a methodology has been devised to measure the effectiveness of these institutions – the overall performance of some of them, and specific activities of others. The selected six institutions are: the Anti-Corruption Agency, the Internal Control Sector of the Ministry of the Interior, the Commissariat for Refugees and Migrations, the Centre for Human Trafficking Victims Protection, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection. The pioneering results of the application of these methodologies are presented in the first edition of the Institutional Barometer.1 In our approach, indicators were formulated which reflect the dimensions of outcome and process, with a special emphasis on the implementation, which is recognized as the main challenge and is therefore the focus of monitoring by the European Union (hereinafter: EU) as well. The indicators were divided into three “baskets” that reflect three dimensions of institutional functioning: internal efficacy, institutional embedment and institutional legitimacy. This approach has enabled us to group different types of indicators, which then reflect the different dimensions of management that they measure. It is precisely this approach that has provided us with the data testifying to the effectiveness of the institutional set-up. Further, monitoring the indicators in the period between the first edition and this one, as well as in the years to come, will allow us to identify the trend regarding the success of the state in improving the situation in specific areas. By grouping our indicators into the “baskets” we were able to choose from a myriad of indicators the ones that are relevant for a specific institutional design and by using various sources of data to juxtapose public perceptions and experience on the one side with pure administrative data on the other.

• Details
• Contents