Part IV – Case Study Reports 1. Introduction In this section, we complement the quantitative findings from Part III of this report by selecting ten regions for more in-depth qualitative research. Two primary criteria were employed in the selection of the regions. First, both ‘high QoG’ and ‘low QoG’ regions were intentionally selected. In several cases, such as Bolzano (IT), Västra Götaland (SE) and Pais Vasco (EP), Campania (IT), Norte (PT) and Severozapadan (BG), the regions were ranked on the relatively high or low end of the entire sample of 172 EU regions. In other cases, the regions demonstrated high or low QoG relative to their geographic position in the EU, such as Wallonie (BE), Nord Vest (RO), Estonia and Jihozapad (CZ). The general hope in this more qualitative part of the report was to corroborate the results of the survey data in Part III and to produce findings from both high and low QoG regions from which general advice for other regions can be deduced along with possible specific policy recommendations. Second, a fairly even distribution of EU-15 and New Member States (NMS) was selected. EU-15 regions come from Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Spain and Portugal, while the NMS regions come from Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Estonia. This was done to acknowledge the diverse challenges that face regions in different parts of the EU and the relatively different levels of economic and political development observed among the cases. 2. Methodology of the Case Studies The ten case studies in this report follow the same methodology. First, each researcher was assigned a region and gathered background information on demographics, indicators of economic and social development, the EU’s recent impact, and the history and significance of the region. Such data and background information are based on official documents and data provided by the EU or the individual country or regional websites themselves and are chronicled in full in the appendix to this part of the report. Next, an ‘expert survey’ was collectively designed by the research team to capture more detail and depth as to the region’s large-N quantitative QoG score from Section 3 of the report. The questionnaire focuses on several topics potentially related to causes and outcomes of QoG at the regional (and national) level. First, we seek generally to corroborate the findings of the data – in terms of the placement of the region in the data itself - with the opinions of the regional experts to provide the data with a degree of ‘face validity’. Further, we inquire about institutions, such as the strength of the regional media, the public administration in terms of hiring practices and protection for employees, the level of regional autonomy, the impact that the EU has had on QoG in the region and the perceptions of impartiality in the three public services on the large-N survey – health care, law enforcement and education. Each of the researchers was then given the task of locating and making contact with several ‘regional experts’ and to set up face-to-face (or Skype at times) interviews with them. We intentionally targeted occupations that we believed were relevant to the study so as to obtain ‘first hand’ knowledge of the way the public administration or the media for example operate in the region. The experts thus ranged from civil servants to professors of public administration to doctors, teachers, lawyers, politicians, local media reporters or persons employed at an NGO, such as Transparency International. Although 1 some experts interviewed wished to remain anonymous, all interviewees that allowed us to make their names and occupations public are listed in the appendix to this report. The researchers then traveled to their respective regions during the months of May and June of 2010. Each researcher interviewed at least three local experts in different occupations. The expert survey was translated into all local languages by each researcher, who either spoke the language as a mother tongue or had strong knowledge of the local language of the region of interest. All translated surveys are given in this appendix to this section of the report. The only exception to this was Estonia, for which we were unable to find a qualified native speaker. The information from the expert interviews was then coupled with the background information on the region/country in order to provide a basic understanding of some of the causes and consequences of either high or low QoG in the region. All interviews and reports were thus completed within an initial time period of three months, between 1 April and 1 July 2010. 3. Summary of the Findings from the Case Studies: Eight “Lessons” Before presenting the individual case studies, we summarize several common characteristics among well-performing regions (or characteristics lacking in poor performing regions) in order to explain why some EU regions present higher QoG than others, by looking at which features above average regions in QoG have in common that, at the same time, make them different from below average regions. The main “lessons” about how to improve QoG are the following. 3.1. Independent and active media In the first place, it is important to note that the countries with poorer levels of QoG belong to the EU countries with the lowest positions in the Reporters Sans Frontiers’s 2009 World Press Freedom Index, such as Romania, which occupies position 50, or Bulgaria, ranked 68th. This is common knowledge in the scholarly literature. According to the experts, one of the main triggers of high levels of QoG in a given country is the existence of a free and widely read press that keeps an eye on power abuses. An example of the media playing its watchdog role - as “the people's eye on the state”- is found in Sweden, where in April 2010 the investigative television programme Uppdraggranksning, aired by the state owned channel SVT1, uncovered a corruption case in the Gothenburg municipality departments and a municipality-owned housing association. This had previously been reported internally, but the case had been shut down because the internal investigation was inconclusive. However, the continued investigative work of the television journalists, followed by their colleagues in the major local and national newspapers, forced the public authorities to re-open it. The existence of a free and independent media seems to show a greater correlation with the level of QoG in a region than its level of economic development. For instance, a founding member of the EU with an advanced G-8 economy, Italy, ranks 49 in the world in terms of press freedom – behind, among others, several African countries such as Cape Verde, Ghana, Mali and South Africa – while Estonia, a new member state with a relatively recent communist experience and a small economy, ranks 6th in the world. Similarly, while Freedom House rates Estonia as “free” with respect to press freedom – together with the vast majority of advanced democracies – it rates Italy as only “partly free” since 2004. These notable, and relatively paradoxical from a historical and socio- 2 economic point of view, differences in media freedom may account for the also relatively paradoxical differences in QoG between Estonia, which ranks 16th among the EU-27 (and 1st among new member states), and Italy, which ranks 25th. Experts and professionals consulted in Estonia regard its media as key for understanding its relatively high level of QoG. Especially in comparison with its Baltic neighbours, the Estonian media are considered to be more independent of political parties and entrenched economic interests1. This independence would be the result of both an Estonian media ombudsman who closely monitors the media as well as fierce competition among the largest newspapers.2 Similar to the EU countries leading the world rankings of QoG, such as Sweden, Estonia has popular investigative journalists who on a regular basis publish cases of potential public concern about government activities in both the written press and prime time TV shows.3 In striking contrast, according to some accounts (Reporters Sans Frontiers 2010), Italian reporters may be threatened if they attempt to uncover certain stories about the political elite. Even some of the exceptions to the Italian average level of QoG can be partially explained with reference to the media. For instance, the bilingual region of Bolzano – the highest performer in Italy and which ranks among the top 10% of the 172 EU regions surveyed – has a unique media situation with both German and Italian newspapers and radio stations. Experts consider this to increase media’s ability to check power because the two types of media complement each other: the Italian-speaking media are more critical of those institutions dominated by German-speaking individuals and vice versa (Charron 2010, 20). Similarly, in a region of Belgium, another EU founding member, such as Wallonie, regional experts regard the fact that “the media are probably not corrupt but they might have difficulties in reporting certain issues”4 may play an important role in understanding the persistence of a relatively low level of QoG. In regions with relatively lower levels of QoG, the political dependence of the media has been found to affect both public as well as privately owned media. Experts in Wallonie5 , in Severozapaden6 or in Jihozapad7 consider that the political dependence is the result of the financial support that political parties ultimately give to media groups. In the Norte region (Portugal), experts consider that the notable presence of Municipal Chambers as main sponsors of local newspapers and radio stations makes reports by the latter on QoG issues less reliable. In new member state regions, such as Severozapaden, in addition to the lack of independence, there is a traditional economic weakness that impedes media from properly researching and informing about problems in QoG .8 1Kazemi 2010, 251 2ibid, 252 3ibid, 253 4 Quote from an expert, 21 May 2010.