Acceso usuarios
The literature views contestation over the partnership principle for Structural Funds as a failure produced by either macro differences in administrative and institutional traditions of the member states or, conversely, micro variation across partnership encounters. Practical implementation of partnership is seen as especially problematic in the CEE member states. The article argues that the default analytical approaches cannot capture the rich dynamics of partnership implementation and suggests a new analytical framework for the study of contestation in Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland. It envisions contestation as enactment of specific meanings-in-use and relies on interpretive methodology. Empirical findings challenge the above-mentioned assumptions about the logic of contestation and suggest that it is divergence across three groups of actors—state officials, civil society organizations, and economic and social partners—rather than countries or micro contexts, that fuels contestation and produces new meanings of partnership.
