Understanding the Implementation of the Romanian National Roma Roma National Romanian the of Implementation the Understanding In

CEU eTD Collection

Understanding the implementation of the Romanian National Roma Roma National Romanian the of implementation the Understanding In

pa rti a l

fu Integration Strategy from 2001 from Strategy Integration lfill m e nt Supervisor: Bodenstein Thilo Ce D

f or e n p

tral a t B h r e Carmen Tanasie t u m

dape d Subm E e eg u n ro t ree 20 s o By pean t, i f tted

Pu o H 5

f ung

Ma blic

a ster iv

ry P

e o

rsi

l o icy f t

y Ar

ts - 2012

P ublic

P olicy

CEU eTD Collection S N D Thi o mat oth b Tothe I, the undersigned Carmen Tanasie A r ignatu a a U

no me me ………10 te: e s T e r

r i H

n i s pe a - (

O d a t p l r rs e e: e R r w inted s g r on ’ t o t ue h hich … r S e

e p

f D ………… e c

xce o m l EC ett r p J og y a y une 2015………… s

p e

L kn

o r t rs been ARA a f w m, in Engli m, in

o ) the the the : w h

…… TANASIECARMEN e ledge a T r e cc IO

due a due e

s N Tanasie Carmen pted i

thi , s i s ncluding c h o

a kno he the s

pa r

s in a e w i b r s l t o t y

e contain

n d d f f y g in ec

ement h ement the ot

a … la ……..… l h r r e r … e that e e s i e

qui no mate no …….… l i a s ngu a i r on s

e I

b s a a e . m the e g

en mad en n e. r

ial p ial t s

o f s

r ole a e e n viou . Thi . y a

ot utho s h l s e y

r the

ac o ubl s f a

i thi s d i

e s con hed mic s

the t ain

b deg s y i s

s . a

r n no e y e

CEU eTD Collection discrimination Romania Roma, Keywords: realization of theNRISmight beclosed. successful the hinder which loopholes the how of recommendations offers thesis the problems, these diagnosing to addition In NRIS. the implementing towards commitment political weak clearpoli less than to led Roma Romania against discriminationin institutional structural Long Romania. in Roma of discrimination institutional the was process implementation semi This thesis focuses on the factors that hampered the implementation using document analyses and according to national and international reports, the implementation of the NRIS was not successful. as to established wasframework institutional special a and period, this during times several changed and updated was NRIS The housing. aim of improving the lives of the Roma minority in four areas: education, health, employment and European Union (EU) as a precondition for Romania to become part of t Strategy (NRIS) 2001 This A BSTRACT

- thesis looks at the factors that hindered the of implementation the National IntegrationRoma stru ctured interviews as methodology. The main factor that influenced the NRIS NRIS the influenced that factor main The methodology. as interviews ctured

- 2012 2012 in Romania. The NRIS, designed in early 2001, was demanded by the Ntoa Rm Itgain taey ipeetto, policy, implementation, Strategy, Integration Roma National ,

sist the implementation of Roma policies. However,policies. Roma of implementation the sist ii

he EU. The NRIS has the cies andcies - term CEU eTD Collection L s their Stoyanov,forand Atanas Cara Maria Torotcoi, Simona Ramona friends dearest my thank I criticisms and loveduring academic my journey. A very t special my their respondents aswell, availability for myand in interest topic. their useful guidelines which put me on the right track in the writing process. I would like to thank Beside my supervisor and my aca was always available for giving me valuable remarks that improved the earlier drafts of this work. I would also like to express my appreciation to my academic writing instructor Sanjay Kumar who Demidov forguidanceyear their academic during thewholean First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to A uppo a CKNOWLEDGMENTS s t but not t but r t and entertainment th and entertainment t l e a s hank goes tomy beloved, Chima WilliamsIheme, mewith who advice, supported t,

immensely

r oughout t

t h ank demic demic instructors, I thank Daniela Craciun and Marton Rovid for

m he a y

f ami ca d l y emic iii f

thei y e a r r .

c on s tant d the writing ofthe thesis. d thewriting my supervisor s uppo

r t a n d love.

and to Dr. Andrey

CEU eTD Collection responsiblefor the poor implementatio Chapter Factors Three.The implementation the NRIS: of byidentified experts as ChapterTwo. National Policy Framework Roma:on overview Ashort the implementation Chapter One Introduction Abbreviations TableCon of Acknowledgments Abstract A u 3.3 Institutional3.3 cooperationcommunicationand for responsible Who 3.2. is implementation NRIS? the the of formulation NRIS policy 3.1 frameworks EU 2.4 New the National and Integration DecadeRomaof 2.3 Inclusion for agenda Roma the policies the on national Social 2.2 inclusion minority Roma2.1 in Romania Factors1.3 thataffect the implementation policy aof 1.2 1.1 Ro Limitation the research of Methodology dataand t h 1.3.4. 1.3.3. Commitment andagreement 1.3.2. Communication formulation 1.3.1. Strategy admap of the thesis the admap of o

r’s Policy implementation Institutions matter

...... D Administrative capacity Administrative ec

l ...... – tents ara

...... LiteratureReview: concept factorsand ‘institution’ the of that hinder t io

......

...... n process of process policies of

......

...... T ...... ABLE OF

......

...... n of its strategiesn its of ...... iv ...... C

...... ONTENTS ......

......

Strategy ......

......

34 29 27 26 22 21 17 16 16 13 13 13 13 11 10

iii vi iv

8 8 7 6 4 1 ii

CEU eTD Collection Reference List 1 Appendix Conclusions the the viewpoints the of interviewees for recommendations and Solutions 3.4. bettera implementationfrom the of NRIS

......

...... v

......

42 41 38 36

CEU eTD Collection WB UNDP TWG OSF NRIS NRCP NAR MLFSPE JC EU EC FRA DRI CBME COR A BBREVIATIONS

World Bank Technical Working Group SocietyOpen Foundation National Roma Integration Strategy National Roma Contact Point National Roma Agency Ministry ofLabor, Family, ProtectionSocial and the Elderly CommitteeJoint European European Commission Fundamental Rights Agency Decade Romaof Inclusion Central Body forMonitoring and Evaluation County Offices for Roma United Nations Development Programme

Union

CEU eTD Collection citizens of Roma ethnicity ofRoma citizens Romanian among especially Romanian communities, some amongst ofcriminality problems natural physiological, 2 mandate(2007 his media during national and politicians foreign 1 the Before1989, discrimination. against laws are there though even Roma against prejudice their BasescuTraianPresident Romanian former the as social exclusion from the legal system, and social insurance. For instance, Romanian officials such most their throughout the is Romania in population housing and employment education, health, Roma in discrimination faces and the minority disadvantaged etc.) 2008 Rughinis, and Fleck 1993; al, papers researches, surveys and official academic in stated is million. As 2 around is Roma of number real the Council European the to origin, according to the last census conducted in 2012, however, the number is debated. According Romania is a homeland for more than 621,000 who people declared the 8) representation.(COM, 2010, and participation political of lack and minority national a as recognition documents, personal the in minority impoverished most the are Roma that polices inclusion social the on conducted about report one in concluded 10 around be to estimated is EU socio the of improvement the is (EU) Union European the of issues policy public challenging most the of one Currently, I

NTRODUCTION Traian Theodor Bakonsky stated in an official meeting with the French Secretary of State ab ofState Secretary Frenchwith meetingthe official in an Bakonskystated Theodor Basescu has made several anti several made has Basescu lives. The discrimination that Roma people encounter every day also includes includes also day every encounter people Roma that discrimination The lives.

- economic situation of of situation economic

EU who are victims of racism, discrimination, poverty, lack of of lack poverty, discrimination, racism, of victims are who EU - discriminatory statements about the Roma in his formal meetings with meetings formal his in Roma the about statements discriminatory - 12 million (COM, 2011, 2). The European Commission (EC) Commission European The 2). 2011, (COM, million 12

documents documents (National Institute of Statistics, 2002; Zamfir et 1

the Roma minority. The number of Roma in the the in Roma of minority. number Roma the The

or the Minister of Foreign Foreign Aff of Minister the or - 2014).

mselves mselves as being of Roma out Roma: “we have some some have “we out Roma: airs 2

expressed CEU eTD Collection Economi democracy, guaranteeing institutions of 2. law,minorities; the rule of protection and for respect rights and human stabilityPolitical: of 1. meetcriteria. “must three states the EU, the countries joining thefor candidate precondition 3 s changed was NRIS The health. and culture, housing, employment, education, areas: following the in Roma of lives the improve to was Strategy the of priority second The implementation. with government against Roma. The National Agency for Roma (NAR) was established as the main body under the policies, inclusivism implement to and issues Roma represent instit an of establishment the was first The 2010. NRIS lines had twomain Inclusion of Romanian belongingcitizens to the Roma minorities" (NRIS) for the period of althou compliance, In minorities. of discrimination the combatting measures strong take to condition with the candidate countries if some political criteria were fulfilled the was EU Copenhagen European Council criteria the of join to countries candidate the for fixed conditions the of One (EU). Union pre the with started Roma forurgency policies The creating of separate abje and communities in living often national undesirable, most the 20 is minority Roma recognized the which officially,amongst has minorities Romania regime. communist the of collapse the after minority socio poor their and minorities national the of one as recognized officially not was population Roma

everal times in the period of 2006 of period the in times everal The Copenhagen European Council in 1993 decided to accept new member states into the European U European the states into accept newmember to decided 1993 in Council European Copenhagen The - economic situation was not acknowledged. T acknowledged. not was situation economic gh largely in theory, the Romanian government adopted the "Romanian Strategy for the the for Strategy "Romanian the adopted government Romanian the theory, in largely gh c, 3. 3. c, Community ofthe Acceptance

the specific duty of coordinating the institutions responsible for the the for responsible institutions the coordinating of duty specific the

ct poverty (FRA, 37).ct poverty 2014, :

- 2015, and new institutions and objectives were added in line in added were objectives and institutions new and 2015,

acquis

1993 utional setting at national, regional and local level to level local and regional national, at setting utional 3 . 2

The European Council was open for negotiations

he Roma were only recognized as a national a as recognized only were Roma he

- accession process to the Europeanthe to accessionprocess aey tackling namely –

chief amongst which was the

discrimination discrimination nion. nion. Asa

2001 - CEU eTD Collection politically or the administrative capacity is low, the implementation can be changed, distorted, changed, be can implementation the low, is capacity administrative the or politically supported not are policies the if that argue but line same the follow (1984) Gunn and Hogwood crucial and needs political support and experts a is phase implementation the that underline (2007) Weigrich and Werner following: the reveal factors that influence the implementation stage. For example, the opinions of some learned authors implemen of importance the highlight policy public of studies the Additionally, intheimplementationthe representation of2012).2010: Moisa, theNRIS. (Ionescu, ofRoma point of view, employment, andIn health housing. implementation ofthe NRIS analyzing the from anacademic These studies of the implementation of the NRIS focused on the objectives of the NRIS: education, 201 Decade, (Roma Commission European NRIS the of implementation critically. weak examined the be instance, will For studies several gaps, of in Romania, and how might the identified gaps be closed? In embarking in this the main factors that hinder the implementation process of the National Roma Integration situatio economic what tothe ongoing couldmostlyattributed be discrimination ofthe inRomania. Roma commitmen political low to due is NRIS the of implementation weak the that argue therefore I foregoing, the of consideration In visible. not are results policy,the the delivering of charge in be to created institutions special with even organ international and EU the by supported was and Roma the the of wellbeing to contribute to created was NRIS The agenda. 2020 and Framework European the with In tounderstandwhy order theNRIS failedgoal primary its improving inachieving of thesocio is widely recognized in reports written by civil society, civil by written organizations, the reports and in international recognized widely is

there were very few studies n of Roma, the main research question of this thesis is the following: the is thesis this of question research main the Roma, of n t and unclear formulation of the policies of the NRIS the of policies the of formulation unclear and t . The research 2; Rostas 2012, Grigore et al 2007, EC 2011 EC 2007, al et Grigore 2012, Rostas 2; s administrators (Werner and Weigrich, 2007, 51). 3

that was carried out was more focused on voyage of discovery izations. However, izations. tation,

What are What

Strategy Strategy and the and - 2014).

– -

CEU eTD Collection population in the EU. Another reason for the choice is that the Romanian government was the first was selected as a case study because it has the largest, youngestthe and the fastest growing Roma Romania sources. secondary and primaryrelated of examination thorough the of analysesconsist are: used methods The NRIS. data Methodologyand methodology collection. and data literature the in found are that factors the on and policies of formulation the on impact an had and NRIS of execution weak the to contributed that factors main the of one is discrimination institutional that reveals research polici the of formulation the from or values and institutions’norms NRISof implementation the of the stemsfrom to the NRIS, thethesislack addressed whether the in Through the use of qualitative methods, semi brings factors thatare new notconsidered. affect lists the variables to which might hinder a successful implementation, the specific field of minorities thought are which discovered implementation, but so far the authors do not agree on common factors. Even though are the l variables different implementation, policy even or delayed This thesis relies on qualitative methods to identify the factors that hinder the execution of the of execution the hinder that factors the identify to methods qualitative on relies thesis This the implementation of the NRIS, and the analyses of primary and secondary documents related secondarythe NRIS,analyses related ofprimary andthe implementationdocuments of the

blocked (cited in Werner and Weigrich, 2007, 52). Moreover, in the literature on in Wernerliterature (cited the andMoreover, Weigrich,blocked in 52). 2007,

on public policy. In the next part of this paper, I will present the the present will I paper, this of part next the In policy. public on document analyses and semi and analyses document

- structured structured interviews with experts who are involved 4

- structured interviews. The document document The interviews. structured es. One of the findings of the the of findings the of One es. iterature iterature

CEU eTD Collection explain their roles in the implementation process of projects and programs for Roma. Moreover, Roma. for programs and projects of process implementation the in roles their explain guidefrom(see the interview I theresponde 1), Appendix asked question and the pre semi the in asked I that questions The bottom in understanding the whole process. The use of semi interviewee the which to process understanding the reflect will rather but involved are they which in process the of picture descriptive a just provide not will respondents the that statesHe interviews. gatheringthroughout their of because mostly valued, per process the is in involvement participants the of knowledge and experience the that Semi bewill used whichontheprimary isbased so Rights Fundamental etc. the literature(FRA),academic Agency and Also, Inclusion(DRI) Roma Decadeof the EC, the releasedby communications the and officialreports the analysesare the in The housing). and health, employment, (education, Strategy the in measures institutions which analyze, monitor or evaluate the NRIS in the areas that are foreseen as principal in used data primary the legislative acts related to the Roma inclusion policies from 2001 andInclusion, documents, Integrationprogrammatic the StrategyRoma National of the relatedto paper the in used sources main The of the EU. officialanbecoming member before inclusion Roma officialataimed an document implement to - structured interviews are essential due to the fact that this method is based on the assumption - uppers.

- assessment assessment of the implementation process of the NRIS. Besides the questions

this thesis are the official reports developed by different public and private private and public different by developed reports official the are thesis this se. Richardson et al. (1965) highlighted the importance of data of importance the highlighted (1965) al. et Richardson se.

brings values, norms and motives that are crucial contributions crucial are that motives and norms values, brings - analyses are the o the are analyses - structured interviews were developed around the research research the around developed were interviews structured urces thatassess theseurces policies. 5

- structured interviews is a relevant method for fficial data from the Romanian government Romanian the fromfficial data nts to share their experiencesand share nts to - 2012. 2012. Moreover, some of the secondary data used used data secondary

of the the of CEU eTD Collection respondents originbiased whoare ofRoma intheir were responses. perhaps fa the given limitation a be can this that consider I interviews. seven just conducted non five and Roma them the topic of to explained and researcher Roma a as officials the approached I When interviews. for contacted were implementation NRIS the of charge in institutions central the of representatives are who apparent an was there interviewees, my Among ofresearch Limitation the The seven respondents are: decade. last the for NRIS the evaluating or implementing of process the in active very and origin bot the where see to help will this and implementation, of levels various from come They represent. they that institutions the of levels different the on based was respondents the of selection The as experience their consider I practitioners because very relevant in unders requested were experts as opinions personal their tlenecks in the implementation phase are. Moreover, most of the interviewees are of Roma Roma of are interviewees the of most Moreover, are. phase implementation the in tlenecks   

Roma Inclusion, Roma Romanian government scholars).academic and National experts paid by international organizations (Open Society DecadeFoundation, of last 15 fo programs implementing in active been have that NGO's the of Leaders for theinclusionof namely minorities, Roma. the government national the by designed policies social the oversee to is role whose Finance Roma Nationalthe underservants Civil Age - 20 years.20

my my thesis, some would not cooperate. From the ten planned interviews, with five - Roma, I ended up having only one non one only having up ended I Roma,

tanding how the implementation of the NRIS can be improved. 6

ethnic bias. A significant number of individuals individuals of number bias. Asignificant ethnic

ncy and the State Secretary in the Ministry of Ministrythe of SecretaryState in the and ncy

- Roma interviewee and in the end I end the in and interviewee Roma

r Roma for the for Roma r ct that the six the that ct CEU eTD Collection the main findingsresearch. ofthe summarize I will conclusion, Inthe NRIS. the of implementation better a for experts interviewed perspectives the from recommendations policy provide and process implementation the hindering are which factors possible the present will it NRIS. Also, the of implementation better I field. the in experts the with conducted were that interviews and documents specific the analyzing by discovered be finding the factors that hindered the implementation stage. The factors in the case of the NRIS will inclus Roma for level national the at far so taken were that steps the present will and Romania in situation Roma the of outline brief a give will two Chapter that are considered variablesthat by many hamper as scholars the the implementation process. fact the of overview short a give will and institutions of concept the discuss will one Chapter thefollowing:The is structure the thesis of ofthe thesis Roadmap n the same chapter, policy recommendations will be given by experts for a for experts by given be will recommendations policy chapter, same the n

ion. Chapter three will be devoted to devoted be will three Chapter ion. of the the of

ors ors CEU eTD Collection The idea began to be discussed by many scholars among whom were Hughes (1936) and Selznick The concept of institution has been for a long period a main pillar in sociological institutionalism. theyare defined. lite the in discussion much is there However, norms. and the institutions act. ( soci by constructed are that organizations of form a are Institutions 2001). al et (Beth society in role literature, the word ‘institution’ is widely defined as a formal organization which has an important definition of variety a has “institution” word The 1.1 factorsof institutions. give ofthe adescription and brief concept etc. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to give a short overview of the relevant literature on these coo communication, people, leadership, environment, as such factors other by hindered be can implementation that claim Others policy. of execution the to comes it when problematic authors Some implementation. successful a for models different designed have who authors many the of few a which are There task. simple a not is policy a of execution of the NRIS in Romania. To find the factors that contribute to the weak implementation the hindered far so have that factors identifythe to seeks thesis this introduction, the in stated As FACTORSTHAT HINDER C HAPTER

al relationships established relationships al Institutions matter

focus on policy implementation. Matland, (1995) and Mazmanian and Sabatier (1980) are (1980) Sabatier and Mazmanian and (1995) Matland, implementation. policy on focus O

NE Bre e a. 97 DMgi 18) ru ta te ntttoa stig is setting institutional the that argue 1988) DiMaggio 1997; al. et (Barley

– Hodgson, 2015)

L ITERATURE

THEIMPLEMENTATION P

on the basis of legal forms related to the area of activity in which which in activity of area the to related forms legal of basis the on . Few scholars would state that institutions are based on values R EVIEW

several academic studies in the public policy literature policy public the in studies academic several 8

s but in most of the official dictionaries and the the and dictionaries official the of most in but s

THE CONCEPT OF OF CONCEPT THE ROCESS rature about how they matter and how and matter they how about rature

OF POLICIESOF ‘ INSTITUTION

rdination, ’

AND CEU eTD Collection have togive tobedefined inorder usa process. broader understanding ofthe implementation tested. Nevertheless, the theory of implementation and the factors which are found in the literature a these levels, local and regional central, at work who servants civil some with conducted interviews the on Based NRIS. the of case the in reflected be to going are arguethat can one and system, decentralized a has Romania measures. concrete the of charge in are who not and broad system decentralized a in out carried stage implementation the at look a take to have we when important very are authors aforementioned the part of formal institutions (governments, political parties, independent institutions Likewise March and Olsen (1989) acknowledge the influence that most influential actors who are decision the culture and the values of a person do not affect his/her decision decisions and design policie make organization or institution an of part are who actors the literature sociological the in given 3). 1997, (Barleyall. institution. etthe structureof definition informal or the formalAccording to institution the of actors the by of taken decisions the norms influence institutions the and values the that assume (1997) al et Barley as such scholars Consequently, (1947), Contrary to these claims made by many authors in sociological theories, DiMaggio argues that argues DiMaggio theories, sociological in authors many by made claims these to Contrary

formulation and execution stage. (March and Olsen. 1989. 15) 15) 1989. Olsen. and (March stage. execution and formulation who were looking mostly at institutions through the through institutions at mostly looking were who - makin at each level the institutional setting has its values and norms, therefore these concepts these therefore norms, and values its has setting institutional the level each at so specific so g or the implementation depends on the belief and commitment of the actors. actors. the of commitment and belief the on depends implementation the or g

with respect to the relationship between the institutions and the actors the and institutions the between relationship the to respect with s according to their norms, beliefs,s according and totheir norms, values. .

The literature on implementation and institutions is institutions and implementation on literature The 9

lenses - making (DiMaggio 1988). The

of values, norms, and beliefs. beliefs. and norms, values, of ssumptions are going to be to going are ssumptions the s and also determine the the determine also and s

claims made by the the by made claims , etc.) can affect

CEU eTD Collection which are atbased the local level. Bottom an population the of eyes the through viewed and realistic be to needs process implementation the in institutions between relationship the that argue (1982) Hull and Hjem the from grassroo realities the implementation, and formulation policy good for that argue approach The bottom to deliver aand linear clear implementation (ibid). central authorities have to find a suitable institution to accommodate the view of the policy i The limited. be should process implementation the in involved actors and institutions of number t says also Matland tools. and can track the problem, has the official 1995, 147) Likewise, Sabatier and Manzamian (1989) argue that the government as a central body p and capacity administrative their to due policy the implement and top The Top downand Bottom up. success scholars, some of administrative capacities of the institutions that are in charge of delivering the policies. In the view the government to continue or not with a policy is usually influenced by the political intention and in Werner action”(cited of world the in impact ultimate and Weigrich,20 the and something, stop to or something do to government the of part the of intention apparent O’Tool 1.2

Policy implementationPolicy e (2006) defines policy implementation as “what happens between the establishment of an“what establishment of between the happens definese policy implementation (2006) as - ts should be considered. (Lipsky; 1980; Pülzl, Treib, 2007) Moreover, Berman (1980), (1980), Berman Moreover, 2007) Treib, Pülzl, 1980; (Lipsky; considered. be should ts down approach assumes that central institutions, such as the government, have to design to have government, the as such institutions, central that assumes approach down - up approach is a reaction to the top down approach. The proponents of the bottom ful policy formulation and implementation arise from two approaches: approaches: two from arise implementation and formulation policy ful

hat for a successful implementation in the top the in implementation successful a for hat

statute - up scholars argue that in order understandto the reality to make 10

a clear policy with defined goals, objectives, olitical leverage (Matland, (Matland, leverage olitical 07, 51). The decision of 51). of 07, decisionThe - down approach the the approach down d the institutions institutions the d n order - up CEU eTD Collection analyzed scholars’ several work onvariables hinder implementation. that fou researched been have strategy extensively in public policy any studies. Figure 1, for instance, of presents some of the variables execution that were the affect that factors the on literature The Factors thataffect1.3 the policy implementation of a policy,and settle the notto debateraging thetop between a of implementation the affect could that factors the discover to is thesis this of focus The 47). approach which on arguments good give to try authors several and debate, complex a is implementation policy of theory The about of the micro levelthepolicy. implication hierarchical on struc mainly based is approach down top the up, sum To level. micro the to level macro the from policy the adopting in bureaucrats) (street implementers policy the to credentials behaviors of the "street bureaucrats". and capacities deliverers: policy the at look should one implementation policy of process the and nd by Al by nd

Figure variables implementation studies from 1.Key previous tures and focuses more on the macro level whereas the bottom the whereas level macro the on more focuses and tures - Kandi, et al. (2013), and classified according to the findings of the authors, who who authors, the of findings the to according classified and (2013), al. et Kandi,

is most suitable for the execution of policy (Hill and Hupe, 2002, 2002, Hupe, and (Hill policy of execution the for suitable most is

Thus, the top

- down approach has to give more flexibility and - down and bottom

(Al - - papoc s concerned is approach up Kandi, et al.;2013,7) Kandi,

- up scholars.

CEU eTD Collection found combination of these factors, or new ones may relevant. be Therefore, some of the factors that fa common most the figure, above the From literature. inspected the in found not are variables standard and task As can be seen above, finding the variables that affect the application of a strategy is a challenging

to contribute to the weak implementation of the NRIS in Romanian society will be inspected. ctors are going to be examined. be to going are ctors 12

A polic A y designed for minorities can contain a a contain can minorities for designed y are

CEU eTD Collection Administrative capacities are al, 2015)as: (Dawson et definedinthe Governance Report be low(Heracleous 2008). the in implementa involved the to commitment their consulted, not not are strategy the of designing are who actors/institutions the if that is strategy the of implementation "co a in results policy to commitment real a without understanding (1989), Floyd Wooldridgeand to According 1.3.3 in astrategycommunicationpoor when is or entirely missing. local level (cited in Matland 1995 theand regional and the from inducements central limitations constraints level), top(the from the and inducements variables: several to due arg complicated more (1990) is institutions intergovernmental al. are et failure Goggin and agreement. implementation of and literature communication the in factors encountered widely most The 1.3.2 achieving the desired results. s with clear, not is formulation a if implementers, th of formulation It is commonly known the in literature that the first factor that leads implementationto poor is the 1 1.3.4 .3.1.

. . .

Commitment agreementCommunication and Strategy Administrative capacity c “ n aiiae n cnrbt t problem to contribute and facilitate an they that bureaucraciesso public of are expected that competencies and skills of set The unter formulation srtg, see strategy, e

- fot ctdi L e. l 20) nte motn apc rltdt the to related aspect important Another 2008). al. et. Li in (cited effort"

; 152). The same authors claim that there cannot be an agreement

rbna (2006) Hrebiniak

- ovn. hy nops te tutrl and structural the encompass They solving. pecific objectives, it will lead to failure in in failure to lead will it objectives, pecific . Even if there is good execution by the the by execution good is there if Even .

e ht omncto i the in communication that ue tion process can can process tion

CEU eTD Collection institutional settingsinstitutional delay can theexecution of policy. the changesin the stagewhich ofimplementation. occur The occur changes which inpre p common a delivering of charge in is that setting institutional broader the to paid been implementation of a strategy and still exists about the adequate responsi far,uncertainty However, much so implementation. the hampering in factors primary are possess the administrative capacities of the officials and the limited financial resources that the institutions institutions. the within communication minimal or asymmetric is there if missing thebottom of who are part taken are cases in the final analysis. Additional factors such as the relationship between institutions which in most strategy, affected ofimplementation is whole process the proper even ifthereimplementation isa non the to related is policy. I consider that one of the most significant factors that obstruct the application of a strategy of execution the hamper to assumed are factors several implementation, on literature the From institutional setting are related to the number of officials and financial resources of the institution. Montjo and (O’Toole implementation on implementation, administrative capacity is considered to be able to shape to a great extent policy reality. in literature case the Inthe be not may this structure(Fisher,but institutional 1990) the to problem to contribute to enough skillful be should bureaucrats public that states clearly definition This meet their of masters public’ theand expectations wider political and functions particular perform embrace the individuals within these to bureaucracies that are capable bureaucraciesand skillful enough t enable that provisions procedural - solving, moreover, that the administrative capacities of a decentralized syst

from the perspective of the top the of perspective the from - la omlto fteplc. If policy. the of formulation clear – up in the implementation. Moreover,up inthe implementation. agreement and commitment are their real bilities bilities of the y, 1984). Also, the changes that are made over time in an in time over made are that changes the Also, 1984). y,

commitment commitment to deliver. Furthermore, little attention has 14 - down approach often fail in including the actors actors the including in fail often approach down

respective institutions

there is not a precise formulation of a a of formulation precise a not is there

that are in charge of the

On top of that, of top On em are limited olicy and olicy - existing existing o

CEU eTD Collection NRIS, the ainRomania institutions setting shortoverviewof and be ofpolicies will presented. the of case the in implementation weak the to contributed that factors the of picture clear a have values of the institutions but also the action of the just not stage, implementation the hinder that factors several are there that argue authors some norms, and culture can shape policy formulation and affect the implementation process. However, that claims science political and sociology in institutions of concept the on literature The

actors who handle the delivery of the policy. To

values, values,

CEU eTD Collection disadvantaged facingone, severe poverty. In the research carried out 2011in by the UNDP/World hesitantsometimes declare to identity. their are Roma path, historical harmful their and stigma social this of aware Being integration. social stigma social a created and Roma against discrimination the enforced events historical These (ibid). regime communist the under assimilation forced the and historical with form Romania) now (which Transylvania and Wallachia,Moldova of principalities historical the in slaves were ethni their declare not to people The big discrepancy between the official and unofficial figures comes from the hesitation of Roma increase. population will Roma the while 30% by decrease will population age working Romanian the 2050, by that estimated i It high. extremely is grow of rate its and one youngest the is population Roma the census, last the to according Moreover, Union. European the in population Roma largest the hosts Romania Roma estimated of to be around 2 number million. If real the Europe, of Council the and organizations international society, the ( to number this compare we If origin. Roma of being as According to the last C rm h socio the From 2.1 Roma Romania in 2.1 19,042,936), the Roma population Roma the 19,042,936), HAPTER T WO

events, particularly with the deportation and the killing of Roma in Worldin WarII Roma of killing the and deportation the with particularly events, from as early as 1385 (Sandu, 2005, 5). Other reasons except slavery are associat - . cnmc on o ve, h Rm mnrt fo Rmna s the is Romania from minority Roma the view, of point economic

census census carried out in 2011, 625,573 citizens of Romania declared themselves ATIONAL

P city due to their history of discrimination and persecution. Roma Roma persecution. and discrimination of history their to due city OLICY

both both the official and non seems to be insignificant. be to seems F RAMEWORK ON

- official figures are taken into account, , which barred Roma from thorough thorough from Roma barred which ,

R However, according to Roma civil Roma to accordingHowever, OMA

ete population settled :

SHORTOVERVIEW

of Romania

most

ed ed is is s CEU eTD Collection shelter. and health, clothing, food, suchas basic goods certain to access mainlyinclude necessaries These minimumsubsistence. 4 rights their for made been have provisions legal and minority a as recognized officially were Roma the Although, 11). 2009: (Micu, agenda national the on place a found they 1991, country’s minorities the of one as recognized officially were Roma the ideology political its changed Romania Once Romania political butalsoonits transformation. We communist regime to a democratic Itstate. beshould noted that this change was influenced by the by the Romanian state, and it happened as a consequence of the fact that Romania shifted from the 1990's the in only was It years. ten almost took government Romanian the of agenda public the on issues Roma including of process The Socialinclusion policies 2.2 national fortheRoma onthe agendaminority designedcl to were that polices inclusion social of years ten than more after Romania in found are inequalities non of 58% where population, overall the at completededucation (WB/UNDP/EC secondary have years 66 and 25 between aged Roma the of 10% only instance, For Roma. of opportunities employment the on repercussion a have education formal of lack the poverty,and discrimination absol in live Roma infour of out communities three that and Roma clustered are Romania that revealed was it rates, income and analysis poverty on Bank/EC

Absolute poverty defined by the study refers to the situation when an individual lacks the necessaries needed for needed necessaries the lacks whenindividual an the situation to refers study the by defined poverty Absolute stern model of democracy and had a significant impact not only on the domestic policies of policies domestic the on only not impact significant a had and democracy of model stern ose gapbetweennon the social and Roma and their rights as an ethnic group were enshrined in the new Constitution of theConstitution new in were enshrined group ethnic an asrights their and

that the first ‘official' institutional measure was taken taken was measure institutional ‘official' first the that - Roma have completed secondary education. These These education. secondary completed have Roma 17

, 2011). look a wetake if significant quite This is

- Roma.

ute poverty ute 4 .

adequate adequate Regardless of Regardless

, they they , CEU eTD Collection financing investment and building capacity and institutional 5 promotin envisaged strategy the though Even years. themselves. Roma wasforcertain whichperiod, the a was neglected emphasis, second The ten next the for strategy the of implementation the for levels local the and regional the central, 2001 from emphasis, first The origin"Roma no.430/2001)withtwoemphases. (NRIS) decision (Governmental (2001 period a for discrimination combat to and minority Roma the of lives the improve fundsPHARE n crucial a was institutions the of establishment Romania started preparing for accession to the European Union (EU) and NATO. Furthermore, the promote the rights of minorities and specifically of Roma had been declared in the mid immediate take to urged was government the media, the of attention the reached research the Once discrimination. ethnic employmen to access with significant showed data, which thelevel ofpoverty, education, discrimination, low restricted officialprovidedand Roma, statisticsof situation criticalpresentedthe colleagues his andZamfir compiled in were a book called " analysis the of results The Roma. of life “deplorable” the presented who sociologist of group a by out carried was research sociological some when 1993, in only visible highly became Therefore, the Romanian government designed for the first time in 2001 an official document to to document officialan 2001 in time first the for designed government Romanian the Therefore,

PHARE funds are the principal financial instrument given to candidate countries and have two top priorities: priorities: two have top countries and candidate to given instrument financial theprincipal funds are PHARE - 2010), named "Romanian strategy for improving the condition of Romanian citizens of citizens Romanian of condition the improving for strategy "Romanian named 2010), 5

(ICVV, 14). 2014,

t, and lack of social services. The primary cause of their lack of access was was access of lack their of cause primary The services. social of lack and t, actions. The actions. Gypsy: Gypsy: between being ignored and c

- 2006, was the establishment of an institutiona an of establishment the was 2006,

need to create social inclusion policies and policies inclusion social create to need plce i ciia aes uh s employment, as such areas critical in policies g 18 ecessity for attracting World Bank funds and EU EU and funds Worldattracting Bank for ecessity

oncern;

Catalin Catalin Zamfir et al, 1993. l framework at the at framework l

institutions to institutions

- of 10 years 10 of 1990 when CEU eTD Collection 6 central the with and local the with cooperating for responsible is level regional The grassroots. role was given them, namely advising the Prefect of the county about to monitor the implementation of the NRIS at the regional and local Moreover,levels. a particular of Roma co At the regional level designing or inv not NGO’s are of society, leaders civil by issued reports the to accordingHowever, implementation. the monitor to and strategy the implement to is duty main its and NAR, the of representative of composed is committee joint c supervision of the General Secretary of Government and under the Prime Minister's Office. A implementation the for responsible are which bodies, administrative public the of level local and regional central, the at taken activities the monitor tackl of charge in Roma, for discrimination against the Office Roma minority. The new role of the NAR is to National implement, evaluate and of name the under 1997 in founded (NAR Roma for Agency National The NRIS: following institu the emphasis, first the Under implemented. successfully not was emphasis second the Therefore, formulated. not were objectives and measures specific Roma, for housing and health, education,

ommittee 6

Romania has in present 41 41 present has Romania in

olved nor consulted when it comes to the decisions taken by the ministries in charge of charge in ministries the by taken decisions the to comes it when consulted nor olved

unsellors and experts under the Prefectures and

implementing polices for polices Roma implementing

tions tions were created in the period 2001 24 ministerial committees committees ministerial 24 : County Offices for Roma (COR).

Prefectures outside Bucharest outside Prefectures

h sae ertre, edr o Rm ognztos ad a and organizations, Roma of leaders secretaries, state the ), established in 2004, is the same institution that was that institution same the is 2004, in established ), (Ilie et.al(Ilie 2013). strategy. The the of application the for up set were 19

- 2004, responsible for the implementation of 6 . The role of the counsellors and experts is T of the NRIS. The NAR is under the the under is NAR The NRIS. the of hese regional institutions are composed

the Roma situation from the n the ing j oint oint CEU eTD Collection rights. and resources goods, market, services, labor the to access promotingtheir 7 2006 for Plan ActionGeneral the in established actions “the that stated was it Plan, the Action development community education, administration, social security and culture (Ilie.et al, 2013, 166). Under the financial measures in employment, housing, as such areas in measures the NRIS was updated with the new Action Plan for the period of 2006 measur particular to be shifted from the creation of the responsible institutions to the adoption of an action plan with had NRIS the of focus the place. Thus, in be will schooling and health housing, for opportunities increas at aimed measures concrete that ensure to order acknowledged. Urgent measures and objectives were demanded of the government of Romania in socio poor their where Roma on chapter specific a had Memorandum EU, the by demanded polices inclusion social first the marked 2005 year The EU. the of member official an T the responsibletoimplement NRIS. 2012). bodies (Moisa, how and government the by understood clearly not was it and inclusion, Roma for measures specific no were there up, drawn were institutions these Althoughlevels. local and regional central, the operate to continue still and 2001, year the of beginning the at created were institutions These (ICVV, 30). communities 2014, Roma the with authorities local public the connect to is experts under the COR, and are also adminis level local the At level.

The Memorandum's principal aim is to fight poverty and to tackle the social exclusion of vulnerable groupsby vulnerable of exclusion social tacklethe to and aim poverty fight is to principal Memorandum's The he demand to create specific social inclusion policies for Roma began before Romania became became Romania before began Roma for policies inclusion social specific create to demand he –

when Romania signed the so the signed Romania when es and objectives to fulfill the requirements of the signed accord. Thus in 2006 in Thus accord. signed the of requirements the fulfill to objectives and es

local experts of Roma origin Roma of experts local

tratively responsible to the mayors. The role of the local Roma - called “Joint Memorandum on S on Memorandum “Joint called 20

were appointed by mayors, and they are they and mayors, by appointed were ing job opportunities for Roma, equal equal Roma, for opportunities job ing

- 2008 2008 by incorporating new - economic situation was situation economic ocial Inclusion” ocial 7

The and at at - CEU eTD Collection the beenAction has Plan never adopted. 2005, in country signatory first the was Romania though Even DIR. of priorities the meet not did (De housing and to design and adopt action plans for Roma integration in four areas: education, employment, health, had countries signatory that was DRI the of condition The countries. signatory the from citizens oftheto speed national uptheimplementation docu Union (EU). The goal of the Decade is to involve the governments through a political commitment 2005 countries 12 together brings that commitment 2005 Inclusion Roma of Decade the is policies inclusion was exclusively depende be also should It (Ibid). mentioned that in the NRIS,previous 2001 sources” external and domestic from attracted funds by as well as 2008 shall be financed by funds from the State budge Another important agreement that Romania signed which highlighted the importance of social social of importance the highlighted which signed Romania that agreement important Another 2.3 Decade2.3 ofRoma Inclusion - 2015 is an initiative of the Open Society (OSI), the World Bank (WB) and the European the and (WB) Bank Worldthe (OSI), Society Open the of initiative an is 2015 cade website). The political commitment assumed by the Romanian government government Romanian the by assumed commitment political The website). cade nt ontheprograms. PHARE

- 2004, national funds were not included, and the NRIS – 21

those that have a sizable Rom sizable a have that those

ments which Roma aim toimprove thelife of t, Pre

- Accession Instruments, other EU funds, - 2015 (DIR). DIR is a political political a is DIR (DIR). 2015 a population. DRI population. a CEU eTD Collection Roma". ofsituation improvementthe of the on Strategy Government implement the to in order capacity administrative fundingand 8 173/4). 2011, (COM, adopted and developed be Strategies Integration Roma National for Framework Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions proposed that an EU wit together EU the when moment decisive the was That 2010. of summer the in EU when from Roma Romania and Bulgaria expelledfrom were France theFrench by authorities Roma the for minority, measures implementing are Bulgaria and Romania as such population Roma significant a with countries though even that realized EU The 2020. to up Strategies Integration A new direction that changed th concrete place these measures were for tochange. in things no and alleviated, been not have poverty severe and employability low combatted, been not have wer which fulfilled not are manythat ismeasures to pay However,attention to Romaniahas that recommendation constanta (2001 government Romanian concerning Roma inclusion. The the EU was delighted with by taken were that measures the on impact important an had EU Europe in Roma of inclusion the in role financial significant a plays Union European The

2.4 frameworks 2.4 EU andNational the New The Accession Partnership wi AccessionPartnership The - 04, n wne te salsmn o te epnil isiuin fr oa issues. Roma for institutions responsible the of establishment the wanted and 2004),

the situation did not improve visibly. Heated debates started concerning the Roma in the

th Romania which was signed in 2001 stated that the “EU will “EUthat thestated in2001 signed waswhich thRomania e included in the Action Plan. Discrimination and school segregation school and Discrimination Plan. the Action in included e

e planned strategy was the adoption of the EU framework for Roma 22

Integration Strategy

Romania for the Strategy that was in place

provide adequate adequate provide h the European the h 8 .

The The CEU eTD Collection Counsellor ofCounsellor State. representatives from Generalthe Secretariat of the Government, the of president the NAR and the health, (education, Strategy the of measures the of charge in are that ministries five the of representatives of composed is It Roma. for policies inclusion social the to relation in EC the with connection the maintaining of charge in is Body Central exclusive role of coordinating the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Strategy. (2012 NRIS the implementing and coordinating of responsibilities main the with bodies institutional new create to EC the by strategies or measures for Roma inclusion. Therefore, the Romanian government was hard which EC the by taken step decisive the was This Strategy(GoodwinBuijs 2013). and 2020 the in envisaged targets economic the meet to as so market, labor formal the entering in forci by market The new objectives of the EU under the 2020 Agenda aim at integrating the Roma into the internal goals“smartgrowth” and and sustainable ofinclusive be 2011, achieved (COM 173). impl the for responsible institutions governmental specific establishing of need the underlined EC society.the Similarly,civil Roma with dialogue active an and measures concrete for need the 2020 underline the which of Agenda, the EU, Romania had to update its Strategy for the period 2011 from requirements new the to Due housing. and healthcare, employment, education, areas: four in people Roma of welfare the improve to have states member the that is Framework’sgoal The - 2020) a new institution called the ng the member states to invest in education and programs which assist the Roma Roma the assist which programs and education in invest to states member the ng

efficiently. Thus, the Romanian government included in the new NRIS new the in included government Romanian the efficiently.Thus, ementation and evaluation of the NRIS in order that the new new the that order in NRIS the of evaluation and ementation

Central Body for Monitoring and Evaluation, 23

urged the member states to create special special create to states member the urged employment, justice and culture), two two culture), and justice employment, - 2020, i ncluding the new objectives

- with the pressed pressed

The The CEU eTD Collection education (Annex 1 NRIS, 2015, 6). formal insufficient and qualifications, low discrimination, to due is market labor the on people theref logically follows It employed). officially are (10% market labor the from excluded socially being as presented are Roma the document, same the In were inrelative living poverty, whilein2011 outoffour were three inthe same living conditions. peop four of out two 2005 in that show Statistics worsening. is Roma the of economicsituation Roma people. poli voluntary the and NRIS new the However,agenda. public the on issues Roma including on and levels local and regional central, the at institutions particular creating on years 12 for focused Romania above, shown As at the international level. main responsibility to monitor and evaluate the NRIS as well as to represent Roma from thehaveNAR the with togetherNRCP Theinstitutions. EU the with permanentcontact ahave to ( Point Contact a for need the stressed EC the NRIS, the of implementation and monitoring the an informative bulletin in the cabinet meetings. theimplementation andm resultsmonths ofthe six each and basis, monthly a on meets group The (MIA). Affairs Internal of Ministry the and state secretaries from the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (MLFSPE) the Vice Prime Ministry and the Office is managed by the president of the NA implementation of the Strategy and other institutions. The Working Group is to be coordinated by wa Another important institution that was created by the Prime Ministerial decision nr 36/24.03.2011 the s Inter For instance, Annex 1 of the new updated NRIS, 2015 - iitra Wrig Group, Working ministerial NRCP)

in each member state. The role of the NRCP is to monitor the NRIS and and NRIS the monitor to is NRCP the of role The state. member each in

tical involvement in the DIR did not contribute to the wellbeing of of wellbeing the to contribute not did DIR the in involvement tical The aim of the next chapter is to identify the factors that have

24 Besides the new internal arrangements concerning easures taken for Roma inclusion areeasuresfor taken inclusion Roma presented in

composed of the ministries in charge of the the of charge in ministries the of composed

ore that the small percentage of Roma Roma of percentage small the that ore - 2020, 2020, reveals that the socio R R together with two National

Romania

Roma le le - CEU eTD Collection policies inthe andimplementation, evaluation of are involved andmonitoring theNRIS. i the hindered far so mplementation of the NRIS in the eyes of the experts who work on Roma Roma on work who experts the of eyes the in NRIS the of mplementation

CEU eTD Collection 10 origin Roma is not of and citizenship 9 execution stage the NRIS. of facthe find to myrespondents of comments the investigate I will th hindered that Romanian society in four main areas: education, employment, housing and health. In the next part factors the identify togoals the with designed was seeks which NRIS, the of thesis implementation this above, mentioned was it As regional andthatare institutions local the implementation incharge of theNRIS. of inclusio social Roma on literature academic and reports international the in reflected is work whose participants specializing Center Rights Roma Na on ResearchInstitutefor Romanian the at o Thegovernments. national the bymeasures takenthe of policies in twelve EU and non DIR the from is respondent One years. Two re sectors. different from come respondents The issues. Roma of field the in involved are The aim of this chapter is to present the analyses of the interviews conducted with the experts who EXPERTS C

I have to mention that the interviewee from th from interviewee mention the havethat I to spondents are leaders of Roma NGO’s and have been inthe last15 RomaNGO’sand workingspondents have issues leaders are of onRoma I will refer to the interviewees by numbers(1 by willthe interviewees I to refer HAPTER

ASRESPONSIBLE FOR T

in T HREE

n polices. The other three interviewees are civil servants employed in the central, central, the in employed servants civil are interviewees three other The polices. n in Roma policies .

ad s currently is and ,

T E IMPLEMENTATION OF HE

- EU countries and is responsible for monit

. I chose to interview these experts due to their position as external

HEPOOR IMPLEMENTATI - visiting a 9 e DIR is the only interviewee who does not have Romanian Romanian have who not does only isinterviewee the DIR e 7) and mention their positions without giving their name givingtheir without theirpositions mention and 7)

, which is an institution that works on Roma inclusion Roma on works that institution an is which , tional Minorities, the Open Society Institute and the the Instituteand SocietyOpen the Minorities, tional 26

professo

THE ther at r NRIS:

has ovns nvriy f Budapes of University Corvinus tors that have so far affected the affectedthe far so have that tors worked in the past as an expertan as past the workedin ON OF OF ON ITSSTRATEGIES

to F

COS DNIID BY IDENTIFIED ACTORS the integration of Roma in Roma of integration the oring the implementation 10

- 20 e t

CEU eTD Collection 12 138 2012, NRIS (Moisa, ofthe objectives and measures theup goals, drawing for consulted be civil society that ECrequired the though even notwas consulted, society 11 charge implementing NRISclaims: of the in are that institutions the of norms and values the account into take not did formulation NRIS regiona the at servant civil a is who five, number Respondent policy. the designing in society civil the of involvement of lack the and resources financial of allocation As Sabatier's instance, claim. For ofthe leaders NGO (no. one Roma 1) mentioned: analyze the policy formulation before trying to it. implement Most of the respondents agreed with not did government national the years last the in NRIS the of case the in that seems It policy. double without implemented be cannot policy a says, Sabatier allocated resources financial and execution for responsible institutions monitoring, of mechanisms and objectives measures, process. One can say that a good formulation has the following steps: a specific target group, clear formulation, policy of claiming that implementation cannot issue be carried out without analyzing the discusses (1989) Sabatier implementation, of theory the In policyformulation NRIS 3.1

He is referring to the PHA to isreferring He was when NRIS the the interviewee, to According the respondent mentioned, the NRIS, is not considered a policy document due to the non the to due document policy a considered not is NRIS, the mentioned, respondent the have… Discrimination against Roma at the institutional level is a common practice in in practice common a Romania “(no.5) is level institutional the at Roma against Discrimination have… 20 of the implementation, help andrely onexternal financial for instance how can you implement a policy at levelnational if you do not give money for clear indicators, measures, and very important budget… there are no clear objectives and, “ not was "this apublic policy document When 00, an important aspect was missing, the values and the norms that the institutions the that norms the and values the missing, was aspect important an 00,

the NRIS in Romania was formulated as a public policy document at the beginning

RE fund and the European Social Funds. Social thefund and European RE

for the entire period of the policy (Werner and Weigrich 2007). As As 2007). Weigrich and (Werner policy the of period entire the for

designed in 2001 and updated in 2006 and in 2012, Roma and civil in in2006 2012, updated and in 2001 designed

11 27

when thedocument designed there was

12 -

checking the formulation of the of formulation the checking …” …”

the formulation of the policy l level, considers that the the that considers level, l

were no - CEU eTD Collection Roma. 13 the by stated was it As discrimination. institutional as well as resources, financial and objectives measures, clear of lack factors: following the by affected is formulation policy the that show services, legal care, education) (health spaces public in against discriminated were they that admitted respondents (71%) 10 a they of that recognize out 7 Studies), and Intervention Social for Center (Romani 2011 in CRISS Romani NGO Roma the by conducted level, national at Roma against discrimination public by reinforced is that discrimination institutional the to due are level local the at receive Roma that education low the cases of school segregation in isolated areas where Roma live. In his view, school segregation and that stated He 2012. early until practice common a was segregation system educational the example an as gave he implementation, affect institutions the of values the how asked was expert regional the When centuries. for existed have policy cannot be done in an institutional set of formulation clear a five, number respondent of opinion the in discussion, detailed the from institution as a result of the institu an by unfairly treated are individuals of group a or individual one when occurs discrimination socio gender, race, treate are persons of group a or person one when occurs Discrimination

The respondent mentioned the example of the former Romanian president's hate speech from recent yearsagainst fromrecent hate speech president's formerRomanian exampleofthe the mentioned respondent The

(Marin (Marin and Csonta 2012, 21). - economic situation or ethnicity. According to Sampson (2008), institutional (2008), Sampson to According ethnicity. or situation economic

re discriminated against on the labor market and 66% of the respondents respondents the of 66% and market labor the on against discriminated re

fiil ad h media. the and officials tional values and structure (Sampson,2008,726). Aswas clear The above answers, provided by an activist and an e - up where prejudices and discrimination against Roma 28

codn t oe eerh about research one to According

even now, there are several are there now, even d unfairly on the basis of basis the on unfairly d –

claiming that school school that claiming xpert, xpert,

CEU eTD Collection NATO ( Moisa, 2012). As Wo As 2012). Moisa, ( NATO sphere international the of part be to desire the and EU the from there was not the political will to implement social policies for Roma but rather a political pressure The establishment of setting an institutional thatwas described int not from their ownofcontributing will Roma. of thelife tothe improvement ofthe admitted thatRomania created due the institutions to politicalpres Copenhagen criteria. The respondents (no. 4 and 6) from the international and national sector both probl it The implementation of the policy needs a specific set of institutions to be responsible for Who is 3.2. same rights asthemajority. the have Roma Constitution the under though even investment of worthy area an as seen not are and did not allocate a fixed budget shows that the NRIS is not a priority for the government. Roma values. The fact that the national government failed to institutional draw up clear on measures, heavily depends NRIS the of formulation policy the that argue I respondents, formul policy for minorities. Therefore, Barley’s claim regarding the values and norms of an institution can affect agenda an past the in have not did settings institutional informal and formal the because policy, discrimination institutional the interviewee, fifth

(Matland 1995). Policy formulation in the case of the NRIS is clearly a thetop formulation(Matland NRISisclearly inthe case of 1995). Policy em of Roma was first identified by the EU and then by the national authorities under the under authorities national the by then and EU the by identified first was Roma of em institutions with in line institutions the EU conditions setting, institutional clear a not for national politics, and not from the side of the “Improving the Roma situation, at least in the 10 years come as an external condition external an as come years 10 the in least at situation, Roma the “Improving responsible fortheimplementation ofNRIS? the two the of analyses the on Based 3) 1997, al. et (Barley implementation. and ation

oldridge and Floyd (1989) stated, without real commitment, the commitment, real without stated, (1989) Floyd and oldridge and it and

was rather a puzzle, which aimed just at creating at just aimed which puzzle, a rather was 29

…” (no.4)

a gainst Roma delayed a clear formulation of of formulation clear a delayed Roma gainst national national government, therefore there was

sure, which came from theEU, he chapter previous showsthat –

for instance, membership in membership instance, for

down approach: the indicators and goals

delivering delivering CEU eTD Collection for theimplementa responsible bodies the and setting institutional the shows 2 Figure NGO’s. and authorities public The policies that were designed for Roma andin 2001 updated till 2020 are to be implemented by years20 inclusion. for of Roma policies aft seen arenot results the Therefore, mechanically. yearsdone is last the in Roma of condition the improving that NRIS the of case the in obvious is It visible. be cannot policy a of results tion and monitoring and ofthetion NRIS.

er er CEU eTD Collection Source: theNRIS of evaluation Figure 2.

Ionescu and 2012,72 Stanescu, The The mechanism of institutional cooperation for the implementation, monitoring and

CEU eTD Collection the of interviewees said: in the structurewho worksNAR ofthe one raised, was NRIS the monitoring and coordinating implementing, in power main aimed atwellbeing improving Roma,the the respondents claimsomething or else. NRIS clearly defines the responsibilities which each institution has in carrying out these measures policies belongs to the inclusion Roma implementing for responsibility the that is majority Romanian the of perception by published report one In civil sector and butatthegras experts, thelocal the with cooperation the handles NAR the Moreover, level. local the and institutions regional the The NAR is the main institution that is under the government and is the link between the ministries, was established for theimplementation of theNRIS and ofthe theposition NAR are problem NRIS the of implementation the for have clear roles. The Roman and policy the of view the adopt should stage execution the of charge the in institution/institutions Also, limited. be should policy a of implementation the of charge in are that institutions Matland implementation, policy of literature the In level. vertical a and horizontal a on evaluation and For i For Figure 2 shows that the NRIS institutional structure is mixed, and there is cooperation, monitoring nstance when the question about the relationship between the ministries and who has the the has who and ministries the between relationship the about question the when nstance opinion it s it opinion my In financial. or administrative power, any have not does NAR the but NAR, the to you and ask something at the ministries that are in charge of the Roma they automatically send sel a became NAR “The

(1995) argues that for successful policy implement policy successful for that argues (1995) hould not exist."hould not National Roma Agency and the Roma minority. Even though on paper, the

the National Democratic Institute (2006) it was shown that the main the that shown was it (2006) Institute Democratic National the ian government created the NAR to be the main institution responsible f - government for Roma without real political leverage. If you go you If leverage. political real without Roma for government ( . According . n o

2.)

32 sroots the situation is quite is thesituation different.sroots

to my respondents, the institutional setting that setting institutional the respondents, my to

ation in the top the in ation - down approach, the approach, down

atic. atic. CEU eTD Collection evaluation andmonitoring NRIS oftheNAR. by the policy unclear formulation, the lack the of political will, and the weak admin show, answers above the of analyses the As Romania. of counties 42 the with the bodies that are in charge of implementing the NRIS co or monitor to employees those for practice in difficult very is it employees, Agency of over the decentralized services at the local level. Given the large Roma population and the number the of Action Plan, the central barrier and limitation of the implementation is the lack of political leverage Decade the and NRIS the of implementation the on Decade Roma the by 2012 in issued report Furthermo 2015). (ANR, Iulia) Alba and Braila Calarasi, Iasi, 16 at the central level and just 9 placed at the 7 regional offices (Craiova, Timisoara, Cluj 44). and the NRIS “shall be supplemented by other sources, particularly European funds” (NRIS, 2015, needed are funds national additional no NRIS, the to according However, measures. mentioned point 3, Article governmental decision, same the Under minority. Roma the of rights the protecting for and programs body responsible for developing policies for Roma under the NRIS, for promoting social inclusion and will political of lack the by fromcommitment thepart ofgovernment. thenational sustained is policies own their implement should Roma th for responsible been have which institutions are there though Even majority. the of perceptions the confirmed level, central the Under the governmental decisions in 2004, 2005 and 2 at structure administrative NAR the under servant civil a is who interviewee, the of answer The

In addition, the NAR has limited administrative capacity, the agency has administrative25 employees: hasonlyInagency limited capacity,addition, the NAR the agency.

The agency d agency The

, h NR s epnil fr aaig h fns o te above the for funds the managing for responsible is NAR the b, oes not have any power to increase the ministries' involvement nor nor involvement ministries' the increase to power any have not oes e execution of the NRIS for many years, the perception that perception the years, many for NRIS the of execution e 33

009 (Article 1, par.3); the NAR is the main istrative capacity result in an inadequate or to re, according to the civil society society civil the to according re,

follow all the measures taken in - Napoca, Napoca, operate - CEU eTD Collection h E o te esrs ae i ter iitis Te iia aon o communication, cen the at charge of in are which amount institutions the between agreement minimal and cooperation The ministries. their in taken measures the on EC the 29 2012, (NRIS, charge in ministry each by and level national the at taken steps the discuss to and basis monthly a on meet to have Group Working the and JC, CMBE, the that specifies clearly NRIS and coordination commitment, of lack the reveals that indicator clear is this respondent my to According far. so taken measures the discuss and meet to colleagues his asked Group, Working the and CMBR the in member Rom for years three last the for responsible Secretary the NRIS and ofwhohasrepresentative results. theState theMLFSPE, Thebeen implementation for Inter the (CBME), Evaluation Body Central the with met (JC) for Committee policies Joint inclusion the social where the minorities, about was conference The 2015. of spring the in attended coordination relevant andlocal betweenat the national leve authorities “ of the NRIS.According him: to between the main ministries which are in charge of the implementation, evaluation a level central the at missing are cooperation and communication NRIS, the of case the in scholar, communi minimal the is NRIS the of implementation the hindered that factor a be to found was that aspect Another Institutional communication and 3.3 cooperation To support his claim, the respondent brings an example from one of the conferences that he he that conferences the of one from example an brings respondent the claim, his support To … t he

institutional structure in Romania is fragmented, leading to a lack of communication and communication of lack a to leading fragmented, is Romania in structure institutional ). Moreover, the Central Body of Monitoring and Evaluation is in charge of reporting to reporting of charge in is Evaluation and Monitoring of Body Central the Moreover, ). ain ewe te ntttos Acrig o h itrainl xet and expert international the to According institutions. the between cation - ministerial Working Group and the Roma Contact Point to discuss to Point Contact Roma the and Group Working ministerial

communication between the intergovernmental structures. The The structures. intergovernmental the between communication 34

a inclusion in the labor market and is a a is and market labor the in inclusion a

l ” (n o

Monitoring and and Monitoring nd monitoring tral, regional, tral, CEU eTD Collection implementation. con bodies the and ministries the between coordination and agreement, communication, of lack The execution. its of charge top a from implemented was NRIS the far So unclear division theof responsibilities among those institu to due missing is cooperation and agreement, Communication, government. national the of part the from commitment of lack is there that shows respondents the of view the in NRIS the imp the for provided not were resources financial specific that fact The measures. leaders and international experts consider that the policy formulation lacks specific indicators and the that claimed discrimi institutional servants civil the of One NRIS. the of stage implementation the hindering are that factors of series a found have we answers, respondents' the from analyses the on Based the within more is setting intergovernmental communication minimal the is there When level. central the from constraints the to due in complicated communication that argue (1990) al. et Goggin between Communication NRIS. the of implementation the for responsible are that institutions main the between coordination and communication of lack a is there because down slowed was NRIS the of implementation statement These 112). 2014, Stanescu, and and one report that evaluates the public policies for Roma in the last 20 years in Romania (Ionescu (ICVV,40) NAR 2014, the capacitiesassess of the that reports two in aredetailed levellocal and

institutions, aninstitutions, agreementreached. cannot be

nation that exists in Romania has an effect on the implementation. NGO NGO implementation. the on effect an has Romania in exists that nation cerned with its implementation and monitoring contributed to weak weak to contributed monitoring and implementation its with cerned organizations is imperative for pursuing a successful strategy. strategy. successful a pursuing for imperative is organizations - cery pcf ta i te at eae the decade last the in that specify clearly s 35 down approach. There were many institutions in institutions many were There approach. down

tions/bodies that are in charge of the NRIS.

lementation of of lementation CEU eTD Collection 18 17 16 15 14 following The NRIS. the of recommendations were provided: implementation successful more a about experts as opinions semi The ofthethe viewpoints interviewees 3.4

Recommended by representative the Romani of NGO’s, civil servants and international experts. Recommended by respondent, no. 2,a civil servant Recommended by respondent, no. 2,a civil servant. Recommended by representative the Romani of civila servant. no.1, respondent by Recommended . Solutions and recommendations for a better implementation of the NRIS from NRIS the of implementation better a for recommendations and Solutions . 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

- structured interview guide was developed in a w a in developed guide was interview structured There be must clear differentiation and between measures. indicators insocialexpertise policies. inclusion have who those to given are institutions the in positions the all in appointments the methodologyexplicit how data onRomaiscollected. on Commission and the Committee for Evaluation and Monitoring and there should be an Roma European be should optional for funds specific programs orprojects. and government national the by for budgeted be should measures the all NRIS, the In regional and level. local be should NAR the and Point Contact Focal the NRIS, the of monitoring and evaluation better a For A transparent and professional meritocrat professional and transparent A

G' ne t hv a emnn osraoy tts n h Jit Ministerial Joint the in status observatory permanent a have to need NGO's

one institution and that institution should monitor the polices at the at polices the monitor should institution that and institution one

NGO’s, civil servants and international experts 36 17

ic system should be in place to ensure that ensure to place in be should system ic ay that the respondents could add their their add could respondents the that ay 16

15 18

CEU eTD Collection 20 19

Recommended by the representative of Romani NGO’s,ofRomani experts international and servants theby representative civil Recommended Recom 7. 6. mended by respondent no.4, a civila servant. no.4, respondent by mended

more intheand administrative ministries bodiesat control regional and level. local The implementation mechanism of the NRIS should be reshaped, the NAR should ha wherecommunities live. Roma compact the in level local the at conducted be should campaigns raising awareness Anti - discrimina

oy a sol b efre a te ee o isiuin ad more and institutions of level the at enforced be should law tory

20 ve

CEU eTD Collection institutions in charge of the NRIS implementation. This will show to what extent the factors that that factors the extent what to show will This implementation. NRIS the chargeof in institutions non more including by future the in extended be can research This in actors enforcingthe NRIS. thedelivery of principal the are that bodies governmental the of commitment and coordination of origin. The fact that Roma still experience discrimination in was influenced by the institutional discrimination that exists in Romania towards citizens of Roma setting.whole institutional the on repercussions had turn in level. This central the at agreement and cooperation of level low effectivec of lack the Moreover,and capacityallocation.resources administrative weak financial the of line clear a and of the NRIS failed to contain clear objectives and goals, evaluation and measurement mechanisms, sta implementation later the affects that problem main the contributed tothe weak phase NRIS. ofthe implementation Iargued,As policyformulation the is in the implemen data analyzing and semi factors which contributed to the weak execution of the NRIS, this thesis used qualitative methods: the hindered that factors the expose during Romania in NRIS and the of stage implementation explore to was thesis this of purpose main The The main finding of this research is that the policy formulation of the NRIS from 2001 to 2012 to 2001 from NRIS the of formulation policy the that is research this of finding main The significantly section theoretical the in identified factors the of many that revealed research This C ONCLUSIONS tation, evaluationof the andmonitoring NRISfrom 2001

ommunication between the main stakeholders and interested actors led to a to led actors interested and stakeholders main the between ommunication - structured interviews with experts from different sectors who are involved

the last decade. In order to find the main the find to order In decade. last the ge. As shown, the policy development policy the shown, ge. As

Romania is supported by the low level - Roma actors who work in work who actors Roma - 2011.

the the CEU eTD Collection NRIS) are persistently and efficiently doing their job. It is obviously not easy to ensure this aim, this ensure to easy not obviously is It job. their doing efficiently and persistently are NRIS) can be avoided however by ensuring that institutions established to ensure Roma inclusion ( population discriminated currently its in lies paradoxically labor of source future people skilled low by mostly populated pop rising ever the that is means this rate.What birth the than higher currently is societyRomania’s mainstream in rate death the that fact the considering severe, be will this of consequences The ineffective. inclu the system, Romanian the in rooted deeply if these areget recommendations isallowed noturgently to more butthe statusquo implemented, NRIS current the in account into taken implementation of2015 be experts the by policy the provided that crucial recommendations is It policies. inclusion Roma the of charge in bodies and ministries have should NAR NAR the and the redesigned, of be should implementation mechanisms the that is respondents the of most by given recommendation highlighted most The appointments. political current the to contrary polices, inclusion social at the central, regional local and levels. All ofthem must be chosen according to need for a transparent system of appointing the civil servants who are part of the official institutions the of bodies oversight the in participate also should They monitoring. and formulation policy of process this of part be should NGOs Roma added. and formulated be must measures and indicators new and revised, be should theimpleme catalysts of in therole play origin. who Experts, non of respondents by confirmed be also will thesis current the by presented been have I am not claiming to be a prophet but based on the results of the research are suffice it to say that ulation of Roma in Romania will in less than a century make Romania a country country a Romania make century a than less in will Romania in Roma of ulation - 2020 tochange thestat

NRIS. Anti – -

discriminatory laws need to be enforced, and there is a a is there and enforced, be to need laws discriminatory with all the attendant social consequences. Romania’sconsequences. social attendant the all with 39 us quo. us

in rjc wl gid o hl ad become and halt a to grind will project sion

ntation process, claim that the NRIS NRIS claim that the ntation process,

el oiia lvrg oe the over leverage political real their in expertise . This situation This . - i.e. Roma Roma

the CEU eTD Collection watchers bee employanother to he has thebee, thebee 21 Roma. bodi related and NRIS the implications. bee the to government Romanian exist the beyond goes certainly it and

The bee The

does its work. He employs a bee a work.employs He its does

- watcher And here I invite other researchers to investigate how this dilemma of monitoring monitoring of dilemma this how investigate to researchers other invite I here And - watcher problem is a philosophical dilemma. This is it: The bee farm owner wants to know how wantsknow to farm owner bee is it:The This dilemma. philosophical is a problem watcher

es might be resolved in favor of Romania’s future and the wellbeing of of Romania’s wellbeing of the favor and in resolvedfuture be mightes

- watcher, and so on so and watcher, - watcher. But in order to ensure thebee to that inBut order watcher. - watcher ne f h NI o ppr ditdy i epss the exposes it Admittedly, paper. on NRIS the of ence - ace dilemma watcher 40 –

until the entire society is now watchingbee now societyis entire until the

– -

watcher is actually watching is actually watcher hc hs eiu cost serious has which - watcher - CEU eTD Collection 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. A Interview guide

PPENDIX Anyrecommendations for aIntegration ofNational better implementation Strategy? Roma yourIn view, weaknesses what strengths Strategy? and arethe oftheNationalRoma the did When performing/developing is Who issues?Roma on theProgressReports with the National Roma? Agencyfor and issues Roma for Ministries relevant the with cooperation your youdescribe would How Strateg Could you please indicate the Body responsible for the implementation of the National Roma Strategy? Inclusion Roma National the of implementation the monitoring for responsible institution invol actors main the were Who inpact issues? onRoma major any have projects programs, policies, the Did then? since issues Roma of terms in What were the most acute Roma issues ten years ago? Were there any positive developments been this working for you have long how For represent? you Institution/organization the in position your is What y? institution/s play(s)Which issues? Roma roles key on 1

the last inter

institution/organization - ministerialplace? committee take ved in the creation of these meassures? Which is/are the the is/are Which meassures? these of creation the in ved

CEU eTD Collection European Union (2014),Fundamental for Agency Rights, Directorate Commission, European the in step first a Strategies: Integration Roma National 226, (2011) COM communication EC Summary, Legislation Commission European Commissi European Institutional (Ed.), Zucker L. theory.In institutional in agency and InterestP.J. DiMaggio,1988. (2013) Foundation), Communities Roma for Centre (Resource CRCR 2001) ( al et .ABeth Blackman, T. Mand 2004.Hill Hupe P.Implementing (2002), Policy, Public Sage Publications. (1997). P. Tolbert, and S. Barley, 2005. M. Allio, R Al EFERENCE - Kandi, I. et al. 2013. 2013. al. et I. Kandi, Pla Report on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action f oa n 1 U ebr States Member EU 11 in Roma of Report, EU European Union. the in Roma of discrimination (2010). G4, Unit Opportunities, implementation ofthe EU Framework,availableat: Accessed: 2 Accessed: Strategies: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm Integration 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimi Roma patterns and organizations. 3 MA: MIT Press between Action andInstitution. 2014 2020 period the in minority Roma the to belonging citizens Romanian the of Inclusion 12 4 26, 14, 1 Banks Arabian fromSaudi evidence outcomes: n in 2012 in Romanian in2012 - . -

15 06 L - - A short, practical guide to implementing strategy implementing to guide practical short, A IST 21.Autoritatea Nationala Pentru Romi, (2014). Romi, NationalaPentru 21.Autoritatea

on (2014) on

Theories An Theories

Factors influencing the strategy implementation process and its its and process implementation strategy the influencing Factors

015 , Budapest: Decade of Roma Inclusion, Budapest: Foundation Secretariat DecadeofRoma Report on the implementation of the EU Framework for National National for Framework EU the of implementation the on Report -

d Empirical Studies Of International Institutions International Of Studies Empirical d 06 - 22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger22. Cambridge, MA: Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links Links the Studying Structuration: and Institutionalization - -

eea fr mlyet Sca Afis n Equa and Affairs Social Employment, for General 10 Organization Studies mrvn te ol fr h sca icuin n non and inclusion social the for tools the Improving

nation/files/roma_implement_strategies2014 42

ceso ciei (oehgn criteria (Copenhagen criteria Accession

. uebug Pbiain Ofc o the of Office Publications Luxembourg: Journal of Global Strategic Management Strategic Global of Journal Poverty and Employm Poverty and

Accessed: 2015 . 18,1,93 vial oln at: online available The Government Strategy for the for Strategy Government The .

Jou : - 117. rnal of Business Strategy Business of rnal Civil Society Monitoring Monitoring Society Civil -

vial online Available 06 -

ent: the situationent: the 10

. Cambridge, .

Accessed:

. - - l . . CEU eTD Collection Li, Y. et al. (2015) (2013), Mariea Ionescu, Ilie, S. et al. 2013. Roma Inclusion in Romania: Policies, Institutions and Examples. 2014. Ionescu, S. M.and Stanescu, (2013 Rostas Iulius (2014), ICVV, (1982). C. Hull, and B. Hjern, Organizational Implementation‟. Strategy Effective to „Obstacles (2006). L.G. Hrebiniak, Successfu of „S‟s Eight „The (2005). J.M. Higgins, 2015. G. Hodgson, (2013). R. Buijs, and M. Goodwin, Goggin, M.L., Bowman, A.O.M., Lester, J.P., O’Toole, L.J. Jr. (1990). Implementation Theory and Gabor Fleck, I. and Rughiniş, C. (ed.) (2008) FRA, UNDP& EC(2012) Fischer,F. al. 2007. et Roma in the South East intheSouth Roma Europe Romania, in inclusion Roma the for Union Eastern Europe Accessed: 2015 % http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/Site2014/BibliotecaVirtuala/Publicatii/Raport%20Social2014 Res Political Dynamics, 35,12 Management, 5,3 Economics RomaIntegration National at the EU Framework Strategies for Practice. azi, Towarda Generation. NewThird York:Harper Collins. de societatearomânească http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/Publicatii/Vino_mai_aproape.pdf în Acces at: 20Evaluarea%20Capacitatii%2 http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra sed: sed: 2015 Accessed:

. (2015 Evaluarea capacității agenției naționale pentru romi. Bucuresti : : Bucuresti romi. pentru naționale agenției capacității Evaluarea Making Making Strategy Work: A Literature R ). Ten Years After: A History of Roma School Desegregation in Central and Central in Desegregation School Roma of History A TenYearsAfter: ). . 10,2(1982), 105 n eiig ntttos rls ess equilibria versus rules institutions: defining On Handbook of public policy analysis policy ofpublic Handbook

06 Budapest: Central European University Press - Evaluation report of the national programs financed by the European the by financed programs national the of report Evaluation –

31 13. The situation ofRomain11The situation EU Member States -

Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalis Empirical as Research Implementation -

06 Pu Making Good European Citizens of the Roma: Europeanthe Good of Making Citizens - blic PoliciesRoma for

9 (PAIRS) 115

0Agentiei%20Nationale%20pentru%20Romi.pdf

Vino mai aproape Incluziunea şi excluziunea romilor 43

Project for the active integration / inclusion of inclusion / integration active the for Project - 2014 Srtg Eeuin. ora o Change of Journal Execution‟. Strategy l uhrs, vial oln at: online available Bucharest, eview on the Factors Influencing Strategy - roma . CRC/TaylorFrancis.& . PRO Universitarea. PRO - survey

- employment_en.pdf . .

G e r m a n LG e rma aw cessed: 2015 ora o Institutional of Journal .

Bucuresti.

A Closer Look A Closer Fundatia.Ro -

06 m -

Eur J Eur

CEU eTD Collection apo, ila Afe. 2008. Alfred. William Sampson, Mariana, Sandu (1980) D. Mazmanian, and P. Sabatier, RichardsB.S. Dohrenwend J. Frank,Miller Fischer in: Policy, Public Implementing (2007): Oliver Treib, and Helga Pülz, Preoteasa, Duminică,A.M., Cace, G.(2010).Îmbunătăţirea S., Strategia României Guvernului de O'Toole, Laurence J. and Robert S National Roma : Agency (2009), Moisa Florin (2012), J Micu Michael andPeter Hill Hupe(2002), March, and J.P. J.G. OlsenNew 1989.RediscoveringInstitutions. York: FreePress 1995. R. Matland, 2001. B. Simmons, and L. Martin, Marin, Adrian, and Agnes Csonta. 2012. NIA_Net_Kard.pdf. https://www.gitanos.org/upload/44/68/Discrimination_of_Roma_National_Report_RO Report prin istorie], Bucharest,prin istorie], EdituraVanemonde, 2005 analysis. and Politics Theory, Analysis: Policy Public Press. Methods, CRC of Handbook Mara: Sidney, and Gerald Romilor:Situaţiei Voceacomuni Theoretical Perspective',Public ReviewAdministration 44:491 Napoca) romi,de ( populaţiei a incluziune de publice ] 145 Policy Implementation MIT Press. Implementation http://www.etnosfera.ro/pdf/2009/1/02.pdf - . 174.

The Roma: Landmarks in the history of Romania of history the in Landmarks Roma: The

Studies Studies Journal Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity Literature:The Implementation the Synthesizing

Incluziunea Incluziunea Socială în România. De la concept la implementarea ICA Working Paper. 2

http://www.anr.gov.ro

& Klein D. (1965) Interviewing&BasicNewBooks, Klein D.(1965) York

. Journal of P . 8,4(1980), 538 nerra oil a rromilor, a sociala Integrarea . Montjoy (1984) 'Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theories and empirical studies of international institutions international of studies empirical and Theories Isiuinl Discrimination' 'Institutional

Implementing Policy, Public Sage Publications, tăţi Discrimination Discrimination Of Roma Communities Romania National h ipeetto o pbi plc: faeok of framework a policy: public of implementation The ublic Administration Research and Theory lor. Bucureşti: Editura Expert

Accessed: 2015

560. Accessed: 2015 Phd, thesis, thesis, Phd,

Universitatea Babeş Universitatea -

. 06 - .

06 ae Publication Sage [Romii din România: repere România: din [Romii -

9 - –

9 503

- Conflict Model of Model Conflict

. 5, 2 (1995), -

Bolyai Cluj Cluj Bolyai 726 , politicilor politicilor Etnosfera MA - 729. . CEU eTD Collection (1993). (coord.) E. Zamfir, C., Zamfir, 2007: Kai, Wegrichand Werner, Jann The Government decision (2015), Romania of Government The the for strategy Government The Affairs, international for institute Democratic National The 2015 The h Ofca Gzte n 10.05 Aalbe nie at: online Available unawares andconcern] 21.01.2015. on Press. Methods, CRC Gerald Gazette Official pent http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/164837 the 2015 Period the for Minority Roma to Belonging Citizens Romanian Accessed: 2015 Roma Natională the http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/document of Condition 2015 http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/Site2014/Strategie/Strategie_final_18 2014 Autoritatea perioada pentru rome minorităţii aparţinând români cetăţenilor a intheperiodminority 2014 Accessed: 2015 in http://www.ndi.org/files/Assessment%20Report%20Final%20%28complete%29.pdf participation political report/ F. Access http://www.sagepub.com/healeyregc6e/study/chapter/encycarticles/ch03/SAMPSO~1.PD eot h Gvrac Report: Governance The Report -

06 . 2015 Accessed: n Sde, aa Hnbo o Pbi Plc Aayi: hoy Pltc and Politics Theory, Analysis: Policy Public of Handbook Mara: Sidney, and - ed: 2015

- -

06 06 -

06 - -

9 9

(2001) 10 -

Bucureşti: Alternative. 05

[ Strategy - - G.o 4020. iity f ulc Information. Public of Ministry 430/2001. GD.No. . 2020, nlso o te oain iies eogn t te Roma the to belonging citizens Romanian the of inclusion 25. Romania Strategy of the Go the of Strategy

Theories of the Policy Cycle Policy the of Theories iai îte goae i îngrijorare şi ignorare între Ţiganii Annex I, Annex [Strategia Guvernului României deincluziune

of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the

Spebr 09 aalbe n nls at English in available 2009, September , http://www.governancereport.org/home/the 45

vernment of Romania for Improving the the Improving for Romania of vernment s/UNTC/UNPAN016040.pdf

seset f ares o Roma to barriers of Assessment

Accessed: 2015 , in: Fischer Frank,Miller J. Frank,Miller Fischer in: , u Romi ru - 11 - 2014.pdf - 2020 [ , - Gypsy: between between Gypsy: - 00 nx 1] Anexa 2020,

06 ], published in published ], - ,

9 Accessed: Accessed:

- 2015 . - ,