International aid and assistance to the Western Balkans, which began more than two decades ago after the disintegration of sfr Yugoslavia, has been severely criticised on various grounds by academics, politicians, and domestic elites. One of the main points of criticism has been heavy foreign interference into domestic affairs, which deprives local policy-makers of ‘policy ownership.’ This paper uses four paradigmatic examples of reform in Serbia – in the areas of labor market, income taxation, pensions system, and privatization – to show that, despite the widely accepted view of the dominant role of international actors in the creation of the reform agenda, there was significant room for local policy-makers in Serbia to exercise full ownership over the ongoing reforms. What policy-makers really needed was expertise, a clear vision of the desired reforms, the determination to defend their agenda, and technical skills to implement it. The significantly different outcomes of the four areas of reform analyzed in this paper, despite involving virtually the same actors of international intervention, seem to illustrate well our hypothesis that the failure of some important sectoral reforms in Serbia during the post-2000 period was the result of the policy-makers’ own weaknesses, rather than the result of external conditionality.
——. 2006. “International intervention and ownership of socio-economic reforms in Serbia after 2000 – Three paradigmatic cases” in Dialogues. From International Intervention to Nationa/Local Ownership? (Sarajevo: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Bosnia-Herzegovina): 89–102.
BartlettW.2010. “Creating functioning market economies: Aid effectiveness, policy transfer, and advocacy coalitions in the Western Balkans” in CerovicB. and UvalicM. (eds.) Western Balkans Economic and Political Challenges (Belgrade: Cugura Press): 87–107.
NutiD. M.2013. “Did we go about transition in the right way?” in HareP. and TurleyG. (eds) Handbook of the Economics and Political Economy of Transition (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis): 46–58.
UvalicM.2003. “Economics: From international assistance towards self-sustainable growth” in van MeursW. (ed.) Prospects and Risks Beyond eu Enlargement: Southeastern Europe: Weak States and Strong International Support. Report prepared for the Bertelsmann Foundation (Munich: Centre for Applied Policy Research, Opladen, Leske & Budrich): 99–115.
——. 2004. “Privatization in Serbia: The difficult conversion of self-management into property rights,” in PérotinV. and RobinsonA. (eds.) Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms. Volume 8. Chapter 9: 211–237.
——. 2010. Serbia’s Transition – Towards a Better Future (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Serbian translation (2012): Tranzicija u Srbiji. Ka boljoj buducnosti Belgrade: Zavod za udzbenike.
——. 2013. “Why has Serbia not been a frontrunner?” in HareP. and TurleyG. (eds.) Handbook of the Economics and Political Economy of Transition (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis): 365–375.