Alina Badulescu, Daniel Badulescu and Catalin‐Adrian Bucur
respondents with the overall objectives of the institution, or due to a centralized and hierarchical management of security and public order systems.
If results and objectives are considered by the respondents as more than satisfactory, we must not forget the obstacles and even failure in achieving some targets. Based on their experience in the cross‐border cooperation projects, the managers questioned indicated a series of personally experience disruptions. This kind of responses were mainly concentrated in the field of specific laws and regulations, fact that is explicable given the long history of separate development of the national institutions and also the relatively limited convergence. Besides, there were mentioned the insufficient financial resources, the bureaucracy, centralization and hierarchical pyramid management specific to public institution. The fundamentally different nature and purpose of national institutions, or the mentality, attitudes and mutual suspicions( mistrust) cumulate relatively small scores( i. e. 6 % and 8 %, respectively), but should not be ignored.
Source: own calculations based on data set Figure 1: Obstacles to cross‐border cooperation
These responses cluster on a partner country basis. Thus, most responses of the Hungarian partners’ representatives focused on difficulties such as lack of financial resources, followed by the fundamentally different nature and purpose of national institutions, and, finally, mentalities, attitudes and mutual distrust. On the other hand, Romanian respondents assigned a greater importance to the obstacle represented by different laws( or inexistent laws and regulation adapted to the purposes of cross‐border cooperation), bureaucracy, excessive centralization, etc.
5.2 The main achievements of cross‐border cooperation programs
The responses to this question were numerous and diverse, highlighting the general elements in line with the objectives of their cooperation: purchase or access to common information systems, equipment purchasing, joint specialized training, regular meetings, knowledge on complementary actions in neighbouring county partner institution, reducing the minimum time required for information, less formalities, improvement of the image of the public institutions and increasing trust and confidence in police, enhancing cooperation and joint common( re) actions in case of emergencies or disasters. Another element mentioned was personal and professional contacts, at individual or institutional level. Here we include various situations, such as success in resolving cross border special cases, capability in accessing financing, or building personal relationships. Interestingly, the development of inter‐personal relationships is considered as a successful achievement both for Hungarian and Romanian representatives, attesting that underlying activities on trust, confidence and mutual respect is a prerequisite and an essential objective, sometimes neglected in the implementation of large programs.
5.3 Quality of communication with national / cross‐border partner units
The analysis of responses related to the quality of communication with national / cross‐border partner units denotes a medium and high efficiency of communication( scoring 89 % and 90 % of the answers, see Figure 2).
40