Alina Badulescu, Daniel Badulescu and Catalin‐Adrian Bucur
variety of cross‐border cooperation actions: in some cases, purchasing or implementing an ITC system could not be an end in itself.
5.3.2 Joint editing of materials relating to public order
Editing materials regarding public order and security issues, both targeting the general public and having scientific purposes, also recorded positive scores, signifying that their achievement is a real win‐win situation, for both partners and target groups, and meets a real specific necessity in cross‐border activity.
5.3.3 Staff training and specialization
Management training, work experience transfer or sharing and improving skills for network operator staff appear to satisfy the most positive responses, scoring, overall, the high score( between 34 and 58 % for“ high efficiency”). However, the highest score( of 56 %) was registered for medium efficiency at“ improving skills for staff operators” sub‐activity. This testifies that there is further a gap between the necessary and the actual skills of the operating staff. Even the programmes already achieved have exerted an important and effective impact in the direction of improving workers’ skills and abilities to use ICT, the results are not as expected related to the existing need for staff training. Moreover, this result can testify that this is a direction where future co‐operation programmes should be focused and also that more attention should be paid to further actions oriented to improving ICT skills of the personnel.
5.4 The most effective and the least effective cross‐border activities
Romanian representatives consider as efficient and very efficient actions such as: data exchange and accessing the Schengen Information System; joint border patrols; PHARE CBC Programs; actions against road traffic crime and contraventions; joint supervision on human trafficking; training and work experience exchanges. Particularly interesting are the opinions shared by representatives of institutions with responsibilities in emergency situations, such as joint interventions in case of fire on border area, common tactical application on evacuations, executive staff exercises in emergency situations or disasters, etc.
Regarding less effective actions there were mentioned: inconsistent and irregular information exchange on fraud areas, some excessive theoretical meetings and seminars, formal action( but important for public image), uncertain and costly( in terms of time and human resources) access to finance.
On the other side, the Hungarian representatives’ opinions are unanimously stating that all actions undertaken were highly effective, the only notable exception considering the low‐efficiency( probably below expectations) associated to funding access.
The existence of certain benefits, solid and lasting results from cross‐border cooperation projects is undeniable, but the meaning of this question lies more in its second part, i. e. how the current results could serve as premises for expanding cooperation, setting goals for a deeper cooperation. From our point of view, the almost“ unanimity” of responses( 98 %“ agree” and“ strongly agree”) is rather the result of a pattern of“ compliance”, as we mention above. Given this fact, we consider that decoding the premises for future cooperation should consider, perhaps, other questions of the survey.
5.5 Equal sharing of the benefits of cross‐border cooperation
For this question, 90 % of the respondents stated a strongly agreement, considering that cooperation benefits were equitably distributed and experienced by partners and target groups on both sides of the border. It is a case where the expectations are interlocked with the voluntary nature of the entries into partnerships and the results of training programs and joint projects. Thus, it is understandable that the share of responsibilities was followed by mutual benefit results and satisfaction of being involved in joint programs.
6. Conclusion
The euroregional framework for cross‐border cooperation and the approach of the contribution of euroregional structures to achieving development goals have been little addressed in the existing literature. Within this context, we tried to investigate the situation of the cross‐border cooperation in the field of public services, focusing on a specific euroregion, i. e. Bihor – Hajdú‐Bihar Euroregion, located on the Romanian‐
42