Introduction

The Roma have often been referred to as a 'European Minority,' reflecting both their nature of a truly transnational minority and their importance for the process of European integration in Eastern Europe (Liegeois et al., 1995; Tubbax, 2005; EUMC, 2005). Unlike other minorities in Eastern European countries, the Roma have no kin state and are not politically mobilized. This not only makes them a 'transnational' minority, but also leaves them largely dependant on the policies of the state for both socio-economic development and political representation. Research generally argues that the European integration process, which has greatly influenced the overall development of politics in the region, has had a very direct effect on state policies towards this disadvantaged minority.

Most work, however, focuses on the mechanisms through which the European Union (EU) has influenced changes in policy carried out by candidate countries;¹ little has been done to link EU influence over policy with the actual conditions of minorities. This article proposes to expand the focus of previous research by investigating whether the condition of the Roma minorities in several countries is related to the position of each state in respect to the EU accession process. These countries include Hungary and the Czech Republic, representing the newly accepted member states at the time of the analysis, and Bulgaria and Romania, which at the time could be considered soon-to-be-member states. The data used in the article come from two surveys of Roma minorities: the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) survey Avoiding the Dependency Trap, carried out in five Eastern European countries in 2001–2002;² and the UNDP Vulnerable Groups Dataset, conducted by the UN Development Program in 10 Eastern European states and Kosovo during 2004.³ The article draws some tentative conclusions about the impact of the EU accession process on the Roma minorities in the four countries.

The EU and Minority Protection in Candidate States

That the EU accession process has been a major factor in the development of democracy in the post-communist world is by now a well-established fact. In many ways, the case of the EU is an anomaly; the literature on democratization and international political economy seldom finds evidence to make the claim that external actors may 'tip the political scales in favor of reform' by using conditionality to change elite behavior (Haggard and Webb, 1994, 5; as cited in Vachudova, 2001, 4).

As joining the EU and NATO has been the dominant foreign policy goal of the majority of the Eastern European countries, the European process has impacted the pace and nature of political reforms and the policy-making process (Smith, 2001, 32).⁴ The benefits of membership into the 'most highly developed international institution in the world' (Vachudova, 2001, 34) are used as leverage to influence the domestic politics of credible future member states. In fact, the vast disparity between the bargaining power of the Western and Eastern European states has allowed for the extraordinary influence of the EU integration process on domestic political development in the candidate states (Williams in Linden, 2002).

The way the membership process is set up contributes to EU success in influencing policy. The EU is open to all European states, and the Commission uses a merit-based system to motivate states toward membership. A candidate state moves up the list and closer to membership based on the progress made toward fulfilling EU membership requirements (the Copenhagen Criteria) (Vachudova 32). This process has called on candidate states to change current policies and implement new ones in order to achieve the requirements specified in the Copenhagen Criteria. As a result, policy change in the areas covered by the criteria has often been attributed to 'European conditionality' (Pridham, 1999).

In addition, the EU uses other mechanisms, such as funding distribution and specific programs, to influence policy in candidate states; the Decade of Roma Inclusion introduced in 2005 is one example. The Commission also encourages the acceptance of certain international norms and cooperation with other international organizations such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe in the area of minority rights provision.⁵ While most work focuses on the 'conditionality' mechanism, which is often equated with EU influence, in this paper we take a broader approach and consider the EU influence to include the mechanisms implied in the conditions for entry as well as other policies and initiative by the EU.

The rights of people belonging to ethnic minorities are addressed on two different levels by the EU. Firstly, several EU documents provide for the non-discrimination of individuals based on race and ethnicity. For example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (article 20) states that 'everyone is equal before the law.' Article 21 deals more specifically with the question of discrimination based on a variety of factors. Clauses 1 and 2 state that: 1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. 2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on the European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited (European Parliament, 2000).

Secondly, the democratic norms promoted through the expansion process go beyond the provisions for non-discrimination to call for the protection of minorities on the group level. At its 1993 meeting, the European Council established a set of criteria that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe had to satisfy in order to be admitted into the EU. The Council specified that: Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union (European Council, 1993, 12).

The inclusion of minority rights in these criteria signaled the emerging concern of Western Europe 'over stability in the face of the serious outbreak of (ethnic-based) violence in South Eastern Europe,' which was also reflected in the actions of other multilateral organizations such as the UN, CSCE/OSCE, and the Council of Europe (Bokulic et al., 2006, 66).

Since the 1993 meeting, the EU has maintained its concern for the overall well-being of minorities and has made 'the status of minorities' an important part of the Annual/Progress Reports commissioned by the European Commission.⁶ These reports evaluate the progress of each country in terms of its fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria and are used by the European Council in making policy recommendations and allocating financial assistance to EU candidate states (Bokulic et al., 2006, 67).

Not only has the EU pushed for the adoption of legislation and policies providing for minority rights by linking such legislation and policies to entry into the EU, but it has also used specific programs to promote the implementation and enforcement of non-discrimination policies. The low socio-economic status of the Roma in the candidate states has been a major focus of concern for the EU, and funding has been specifically directed to projects in the areas of education, housing, and healthcare. For example, between 2001 and 2003, the main pre-accession assistance program PHARE provided over 77 million euro to Roma-related projects in the then candidate countries for infrastructure, public awareness, and sector-specific projects (European Commission, 2004, 15).

One of the major challenges to the EU's minority policies in candidate countries has been the claim that minority protection is something the EU has preached rather than practiced. As already mentioned, group minority rights are not part of the EU acquis. Some older member states have a long way to go to satisfy the criteria imposed on the candidate states in the late 1990s (Johns, 2003) and some have yet to ratify the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on National Minorities, a document that the EU strongly urged candidate states to ratify in the mid-1990s.

Despite this often-cited inconsistency among EU member countries, research shows that the EU accession process has 'induced change and served as a catalyst at a domestic level' (Bokulic et al., 2006, 37) in candidate states and has had a positive impact on the status of minorities. For example, Kelly (2004) argues that the EU accession process has been necessary to change behavior toward ethnic minorities in candidate states. She makes an even stronger argument by claiming that it is conditionality and not merely the socialization-based efforts⁷ of the EU that has made the EU policy a successful one. Based on her research, she concludes that 'when European institutions used only socialization-based efforts — which they did quite frequently — governments rarely changed their behavior' (Kelly, 2004, 426). Ram (2003) also examines the impact of European integration on minority rights in the Czech Republic and Romania. Using several legislative developments in the Czech Republic and Romania as examples, she finds that EU conditionality has had a substantial impact on the development of minority policies in the two states (Ram, 2003). Using evidence from Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia, Brusis argues that the European accession process has promoted consociational power-sharing arrangements regarding minority protection in accession countries (Brusis, 2003) while Papagianni finds substantial evidence to link the progress made in minority policy in Latvia and Estonia to membership in the EU (Papagianni, 2003).

The evidence, however, is not entirely consistent. Vermeersch, for example, acknowledges a correlation between EU pressures and minority policy shifts in Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, but is skeptical about the overall impact of the European integration process on the status of the Roma. Instead, he concludes that policy changes are often motivated by short-term political and regional considerations (Vermeersch, 2003). Hughes and Sasse (2003) focus on the role of the EC and its reports but come to similarly skeptical conclusions regarding the role of the EU in changing minority policy in candidate states for the better. Guglielmo (2004) is equally ambivalent; she sees great potential in the ability of the EC to effect change in domestic policy towards the Roma, but remains doubtful about its lasting effect 'unless corresponding changes in contextual attitudes, behaviors, social norms, and political culture take place' (55). The conclusions of this recent but impressive body of literature are thus quite diverse, and the consequence of the EU accession process for minority policy in candidate state remains a contested issue.

EU Accession and the Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania: Case Selection and Methodology

Research to date has focused primarily on the nature and type of governmental policies dealing with minorities or shifts in policy, and has tried to link these shifts to the EU accession process. This research is important as it provides evidence of the efforts made by individual countries to improve the living conditions of minorities — a prerequisite for EU membership. Our research takes a different approach; we investigate the impact of the EU on minority policy in candidate states by studying whether the EU focus on Roma policy has had an impact on the conditions in which these minorities live. While policy may or may not change, the more important outcome would be specific improvements for the Roma in the candidate state.

For the purposes of this study, four countries were selected for analysis: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. As mentioned above, these countries were selected for this study based on two criteria. First, each country has a Roma minority, and second, in 2004, each pair of countries was at a different stage of the EU accession process.

Hungary and the Czech Republic

Hungary applied for EU membership in 1994, the Czech Republic applied in 1996, accession negotiations with both were opened in 1998 and completed in 2002, and Hungary and the Czech Republic joined the EU in May 2004. At this point, they are expected to have satisfied all the conditions and criteria for entry and to have provided adequate protection for their minorities. The two countries are relatively homogenous; the majority constitutes about 94% of the population in both Hungary and the Czech Republic while their minority populations are made up of several small groups. The Roma represent between 1.9–5% of the population in Hungary and 0.1–2% of the population in the Czech Republic (CIA, 2005; UNDP, 2005). Official census data report the lower figures; however, due to the stigma attached to being Roma, experts estimate a substantial degree of underreporting among the group. The higher figures thus reflect the estimates of various experts and NGOs.

Bulgaria and Romania

Both Bulgaria and Romania applied for EU membership in 1995, but accession negotiations were not opened until 1999 and their accession negotiations were not signed until 2004. Both joined the EU in January 2007. The ethnic make-up of these two countries is quite different from that of Hungary and the Czech Republic. The two countries have clear dominant majorities (85% in Bulgaria and 89% in Romania), but also a single and concentrated minority (Turks in Bulgaria and Hungarians in Romania), a substantial but scattered second minority (Roma), and a multitude of smaller ethnic groups. The Roma minority is larger in these two countries than in Hungary and the Czech Republic. The percentages of Roma reported by the Census Bureaus for Bulgaria and Romania are 4.68 and 2.5%, respectively. Unofficial estimates are as high as 8% for both countries (UNDP, 2005). With these higher estimates increasing, one may argue that the situation of the Roma in these two states impacts not only them, but to a great extent the demographic and socio-economic profiles of each country.

A brief review of EU policies and instruments, and state policies towards the Roma in the four countries reveal that there is a reason to believe that the EU has been a factor in accelerating state efforts to improve the minority situation. The four states have been on the receiving end of the EU policy recommendations and financial assistance for Roma-specific programs since the early 1990s. The conditions of the Roma were highlighted as an obstacle to EU membership in all four countries in the early EC annual reports and all four were pushed to increase their efforts in that area. In the 1998 annual report, the EC observes: The situation of the Roma continues to be problematic as the candidate countries concerned have made little progress in addressing the issue. Although their legal status and rights remain stable, the Roma suffer discrimination and social exclusion, in particular in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. Home to several million Roma, Romania needs to step up its efforts to improve the situation of this minority (EC, 1998).

Financial assistance was also provided to encourage the formulation of policy and implementation of programs to improve the conditions of the Roma. Between 1994 and 2001, Bulgaria received close to 12 million euro, Romania — close to 9 million, Hungary — about 16 million, and the Czech Republic — about 9 million to develop Roma-specific programs (EC, 2002a).⁸

The combined effects of policy recommendations and funding from the EU appear to have had an impact on the state policies towards the Roma. Moreover, the timing of the implementation of major state programs seems to be linked to the major steps towards EU accession. In Hungary efforts started earliest and were most consistent: during 1994 to 1998, the government elaborated a program for Roma integration. This program was implemented by the successor government [...] In 1999, the government adopted a mid-term program concerning improvements in the social position and quality of life of the Roma (UNDP, 2002, Annex).

In the Czech Republic several bodies were set up in 1995–1996, including the Czech Republic's Advisory Board for Roma Community Affairs and the Inter-ministerial Commission for Roma Community Affairs, which is specifically aimed at formulating policies on behalf of the Roma. In Bulgaria, the Framework Program for Equal Integration of Roma in Bulgarian Society was not adopted until April 1999, and the Romanian Roma Framework Convention was adopted in 2001 (UNDP, 2002, Annex).

By the early 2000s, the four countries were clearly on two different tracks regarding their Roma policies. In Hungary and the Czech Republic efforts to improve the situation of the Roma were consistent through the late 1990s, and by 2002 'progress ha[d] been made with the implementation of national action plans to improve the difficult situation the members of these communities are facing' (EC, 2002b).

In contrast, in Bulgaria and Romania conditions did not begin improving until 2002 and 2004, respectively. In Romania by 2002, 'the Government has made steady progress in implementing the Roma Strategy' (Commission of the European Communities, 2002), but by 2003 the EC concluded that results have been uneven (Commission of the European Communities, 2003a). In 2004, '[i]mplementation of the Roma Strategy adopted in 2001 continued in the sectors of education, health, employment and relations with the police (Commission of the European Communities, 2004a).' In Bulgaria, by 2002 'there has been very little change in the situation of the Roma minority [...] and there are no significant developments in their socio-economic situation and living conditions' and in 2003 'the situation of the Roma minority has barely improved' (Commission of the European Communities, 2003b). By 2004, however, some progress had been made through the 'elaboration of a long-term Action Plan in line with the "Roma Inclusion Decade" and "Action Plan 2003–2004 for the implementation of the Framework Programme" [...] [h]owever, no adequate legislative reforms were envisaged in key areas, such as education, health care and housing' (Commission of the European Communities, 2004b).

Overall, based on a review of the evolution of EU instruments and the development of state policies, it appears that the EU has had an accelerating effect on the state policies toward the Roma in all four countries. Criticism and recommendations to improve minority protection records seems to have influenced countries to introduce and implement Roma-specific policies with momentum clearly picking up speed as accession negotiations intensified. In our research, however, we look for evidence elsewhere.

In this study we search for improvements in the overall conditions of the Roma and focus on basic necessities such as employment, education, and housing, in addition to assessing poverty rates of Roma communities. We use two complementary sets of indicators. The first comes from a cross-sectional comparison of the status of the Roma in four countries — Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania — in 2004, a point at which the former two had just acceded into the EU and the latter two were (at least) 3 years away. In other words, at this point, the Czech Republic and Hungary had satisfied the Copenhagen criteria and Bulgaria and Romania had not. These indicators allow us to see whether the country's position in terms of EU accession is associated with a much better or worse state of Roma affairs. The data come exclusively from the 2004 UNDP Vulnerable Groups Dataset.

The second set of indicators attempts to capture changes in the status of the Roma in the four countries during the 1997–2004 period using comparable data reported in several surveys. This time period was arguably of critical importance for the EU accession of the four countries — the accession treaties of both Hungary and the Czech Republic were signed in 2003, while Bulgaria and Romania were in the middle of their accession negotiations. We can expect this to be a time period during which previously implemented policies come to fruition and new policies are introduced as all four countries attempt to satisfy Copenhagen performance criteria. We anticipate that the impact of minority policies will be reflected in the status of the Roma minorities over the 1997–2004 period.

Before we go further, however, we need to add an important caveat. It may be argued that even if we do find that the status of the Roma has improved, we may not be able to attribute these improvements solely to the EU accessions process. The spread of democracy throughout Eastern Europe undoubtedly has contributed to the protection and improved status of all minority groups. However, we believe there is sufficient evidence to link changes in the status of the Roma to EU influence and pressure. Activists and analysts alike agree that the plight of the Roma has been, and continues to be a very low priority item on East European domestic political agendas.⁹ Proportionally speaking, the Roma are a small group with limited resources and political influence. They are the region's most unpopular social group and are generally viewed as a drain on the limited economic resources of the state (Barany, 2002, 284). Highlighting this fact is a 1993 opinion poll administered in Czechoslovakia revealing that 67% of respondents believed that 'minority rights should be restricted in the interest of the majority' (CIDM, 1995). This makes the domestic political systems particularly unwilling to deal with the issues of the Roma minorities. Political support, public support, and ironically, minority support are often lacking for the formulation and implementation of any policies aimed at improving the status of the Roma (Guglielmo, 2004). The NGO sector is the only segment of the domestic political scene in Eastern Europe that has consistently pushed for the improvement of the Roma's plight (and their actions have also been influenced by the EU and other international donors). Thus, if the impact of the EU is viewed as insufficient, the domestic political process would presumably have achieved even less.¹⁰

Another potential argument might link any observed differences in the conditions of the Roma in the four countries to the different economic situations of the countries as a whole. Arguably, Bulgaria and Romania have both significantly lower GDP values and higher levels of income inequality than Hungary and the Czech Republic.¹¹ We attempt to isolate the effects higher GDP levels and greater income inequality in two ways: the measures we use from the 2004 data set, reflect differences between the minority and majority groups living in similar socio-economic conditions. These comparisons were included specifically to isolate minority-specific vulnerability factors from those 'due to regional disparities or depressed local economies' and thus 'allow for cross-country comparisons' (UNDP, 2005). Thus, we believe that the differences captured in the gap measures will reflect minority-specific efforts on behalf of the government, rather than the general economic situation in the country. In addition, we also track changes over time, which should allow us to estimate changes in the majority situation as compared to changes among the minority and thus also see whether things improve for the Roma in isolation from the general country situation.

EU Accession and the Roma in Four Countries: Empirical Indicators

The belief that accession to the EU motivates countries to improve minority rights records (among other democratic indicators) is tested by comparing the levels of differential situation of the Roma in Hungary and the Czech Republic with those in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as over time within each country. To assess these levels, we use UNDP survey data to create several indicators of disparities between the Roma and comparable groups in the majority population ('gap' indicators).

The gaps for 2004 reflect the differences in the values of several socio-economic indicators for the Roma and the 'majority.' These values are aggregated from the survey answers for the Roma and majority as a group. The 'majority' population is, in fact, comprised of individuals living in close proximity to the Roma, a deliberate effort by the UNDP to account for socio-economic variation and regional disparities (UNDP, 2005). The gap measure is calculated for socio-economic indicators from three categories: economic situation; education; and housing and living conditions. We assess the level of differential treatment of the Roma minority in each country by comparing the gaps along these indicators.

For all indicators the gaps are calculated in such a way as to reflect the extent to which the Roma are worse off than the majority. For example, the gap in poverty reflects the difference between the poverty level of the Roma and the majority (Gap(P)=P_R-P_M), while the gap in the proportion of people with 4 years of education reflects the difference between the majority and the Roma (Gap(E)=E_M-E_R). Their values are positive indicating that the Roma are worse off than the majority on all accounts. Overall, the higher the gaps, the worse off the Roma are compared to the majority and the higher the discrimination against them. The tables contain both the absolute percentages for the Roma and the majority populations, and the relative gap values for each socio-economic indicator. The use of this relative measure allows us to compare the status of the Roma across countries.

Our expectation is that the differences between the Roma minority and the majority population in 2004 will be smaller in the newly acceded states of Hungary and the Czech Republic than in Bulgarian and Romania, indicating less discrimination towards the Roma. In terms of the gaps, we expect Bulgaria and Romania to have larger gap values than Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Poverty and unemployment

Table 1 contains the percentages of Roma and majorities living in poverty in the four countries. Poverty is determined using the World Bank standard of individuals with daily incomes or expenditures below $4.30 purchasing power parity (PPP)¹² per day (UNDP, 2005). We report the absolute values and the gap values using both the income-based and expenditure-based poverty rates.¹³ Overall, the gap figures support our argument that the EU accession process has led to the improved status of the Roma minority. The gaps in Romania are 47 and 41% for the two poverty indicators, signifying that the rate for Roma in Romania living in poverty (based on income estimates) is higher by 47 percentage points than the rate for the majority living in poverty. The gaps for Bulgaria are 40 and 39%, illustrating a similarly high disparity in the status of the Roma and majority. The gaps in the Czech Republic and Hungary are substantially lower, indicating that the proportions of Roma and the majority living in poverty in both countries are more similar for the two groups. While the gaps in the Czech Republic are substantial at 16 and 27%, they do not reach the levels of discrimination experienced by the Roma in Bulgaria and Roma in Romania. Hungary's gaps of 3 and 1% imply an almost equal status of the Roma and the majority in the lower echelon of society — which is significant.

Table 1 - Poverty rates: percentage of people living on less than $4.3 a day, 2004.

Full table

Acknowledging that measurements of poverty vary in their methodology and are subjective in nature, the following assessment of poverty rates over time in the four case-study countries provides some additional support for the accession hypothesis. It is important to note that the 1990s poverty calculations included for each country differ from each other and from the method used in the United Nations 2005 report. However, analyzing poverty rates among nations over time allows us, at a minimum, to determine a positive or negative trend towards closing the gap between Roma and non-Roma poverty figures.

According to a household survey administered by the World Bank, 84% of the Roma in Bulgaria were living below the poverty line in 1997 compared to 36% of the total population, resulting in a 48% gap (Ringold, 2000, 11).¹⁴ In Romania, 79% of the Roma were living in poverty in 1997 compared to the national poverty rate of 31%, resulting in an equally sizable 46% gap (Ringold, 2000, 11).¹⁵ In both countries, the relative gap measures of poverty decreased between 1997 and 2004 expenditure-based poverty rates. Data from a 1998 survey administered in Hungary revealed a similar demographic pattern. The panel format of this survey assessed the duration and frequency of poverty experienced from 1992 to 1997. While Roma comprised only 5% of the population, 33% of the long-term poor were Roma (Ringold, 2000, 11).¹⁶ The percentage of the total Hungarian population living below the poverty line during the same time period was approximately 10% resulting in a 23% gap (UNDP, 2001, 152).¹⁷ The poverty levels of the Roma have dropped from 1997 to 2004, and the gaps between the general population and the Roma are smaller in 2004 than in 1997. The gaps are consistently larger in Bulgaria and Romania than in Hungary. While reports reveal that 7.6% of the total population in the Czech Republic was living in poverty in 1996 (UNDP Millenium Development Goals, 2004),¹⁸ the percentage of Roma living below the poverty line is not reported.

The unemployment rates for the Roma and majority groups are reported in Table 2. Based on the data specifications, the indicators are reported by age groups. 'Labor Force' is defined by the UNDP as the working-age population (aged 15 and above). Individuals who are retired, in school and/or involved with housekeeping are not included. While the unemployment rates are higher for Roma in all age categories in all countries, the gap levels in the Czech Republic are not consistent with our hypothesis. The gap between unemployed Roma and the majority in the Czech Republic is slightly higher than the Roma/majority gap in Bulgaria and is variably higher than the Roma/majority gaps in Romania. There is virtually no difference in the unemployment rates of the Roma and the majority in Hungary.

Table 2 - Unemployment rates: percentage of people unemployed, by age category, 2004.

Full table

A temporal comparison of the self-reported percentage rates of unemployment among the Roma minorities in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania are listed in Table 3. Based on data from the 2001 and 2004 UNDP surveys between 2001 and 2004, the unemployment rate of the Roma decreased in all countries except Hungary, where it increased by 6 percentage points. The decrease was most pronounced in Romania, slightly less so in Bulgaria, and smaller yet in the Czech Republic.

Table 3 - Change in the unemployment rate among the Roma from 2001 to 2004.

Full table

Looking at the longer term, unemployment rates for the Roma appear to have peaked in the late 1990s — they reportedly reached 76 and 70% in the Czech Republic and Hungary, respectively (Ringold, 2000, 15–16). In Bulgaria, Roma unemployment was reported between 80 and 90% in 1998 (NDI, 2003, 2). Earlier estimates put it at 45% in Romania in 1993 and 46% in Bulgaria in 1996. Because of the active labor policies of the socialist governments prior to 1989, unemployment rates for the Roma (at least for the men) were not dramatically different around 1990 (Ringold, 2000, 15).

The years coinciding with active preparations to join the EU thus have seen a decrease in the unemployment rates among the Roma in all four countries despite some short-term fluctuations. The drops are also more significant in Hungary and the Czech Republic and seem to have been more delayed in Bulgaria and Romania, in line with our expectations. Compared to the changes in total unemployment in the four countries (Table 4), the Bulgarian and Romanian advances pale even more.

Table 4 - Total unemployment rates, by country, 1997, 2001, and 2004.

Full table

Education

Based on the data we present, the Roma in EU-member countries experience greater equality in education than their fellow Roma in non-member countries (in 2004). The actual percentage of individuals aged 12 and above — Roma and majority — who have attended at least 4 years of primary school is quite high in both member countries at 98.5% (the Czech Republic) and 94.5% (Hungary). The gaps between the percentage of Roma and the majority with at least 4 years of primary education in both countries are relatively small at 1 and 7%. The actual percentages of individuals with at least 4 years of primary school in EU-candidate countries is substantially lower at 79.5 and 66% in Bulgaria and Romania, respectively; the gaps between the Roma and majority are significantly higher in these countries, 33 and 37% respectively.

The percentages of children still attending school at age 15 reveal a similar pattern. This observation is even more important as this indicator reflects the most recent developments in state policies. Majority children are enrolled at very high rates in all four countries, but there is a clear difference in the values of the gaps. The gaps between Roma and majority children are 14 and 10% in the Czech Republic and Hungary, respectively. The gap in Bulgaria is 41% and in Romania it is 33% (Table 5).

Table 5 - Education indicators, 2004.

Full table

Because measurements vary and the baseline dates are not uniform, it is unclear how much education and access to education have improved for the Roma in the four countries since the mid-1990s. Looking at the longer term, educational levels seem to have declined since before 1990. For example, average illiteracy rates among the Roma in Bulgaria have increased from about 10% in the early 1990s to 20% in 2005 (Education International, 2006). The mid-term consequences of education policy are particularly difficult to assess due to their delayed nature. However, according to the 2007 Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma Report 'governments in [Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania] have energetically adopted policies and programs to improve education opportunities for Roma' (REI, 2007). While problems of implementation remain and governments are being encouraged to pursue better strategies in this regard, progress has been noted, and seems to be partly accounted for by the EU-supported Decade of Roma Inclusion initiative.

Living conditions

Finally, we turn to the actual physical conditions in which the Roma live. The data pattern of the four indicators measuring living conditions support our accession hypothesis with the exception of accessibility to improved water sources. The data points in the table otherwise fit the pattern we have reported thus far. Smaller gaps between the Roma and majority populations exist in the EU member countries — the Czech Republic and Hungary — compared to the non-EU member countries, Bulgaria and Romania (Table 6).

Table 6 - Living conditions indicators.

Full table

The four indicators included are access to essential drugs, secure housing, improved sanitation, and improved water sources. The essential drugs value is the percentage of households responding 'Yes' to the question, 'Were there any periods in the past 12 months when your household could not afford to purchase medicines prescribed to/needed by a member of your household?' The housing values reflect the percentage of people living in what are considered to be 'ruined houses' or 'slums.' The sanitation indicator measures the percentage of households that do not have a toilet or bathroom inside the house. The water indicator measures the number of households that do not have piped water inside their house or garden yard (UNDP, 2005). Based on these four living conditions indicators, the Roma in Bulgaria endure the worst living conditions while the Roma in the Czech Republic experience the best living conditions among the four groups of Roma in this study.

The largest gap in the percentage of Roma who at times cannot afford essential drugs compared to the majority is 43% in Bulgaria. The smallest gap of 19% is in the Czech Republic. The indicators for Hungary and Romania also fit with our expectations. The comparison of 'access to secure housing' in the four countries reveals a similar trend. The largest gap between Roma who do not have access to secure housing compared to the majority is in Bulgaria (29%), while the smallest gap is in the Czech Republic (13%) The remaining two countries follow the expected trend. The largest gap between the percentages of Roma without access to improved sanitation compared to the majority is recorded in Bulgaria (55%). This gap is substantially higher than the lowest gap (4%) reported in the Czech Republic. Romanian Roma are most disadvantaged when it comes to access to improved water. The gap between the Roma and the majority is 35% compared to a low of 3% in the Czech Republic.

Table 7 reports data on our final indicator, life satisfaction among the Roma. The question 'Do you believe that over the previous 5 years your life has improved or deteriorated?' was asked of the Roma individuals participating in the survey in 2001–2002. This question helps shed some light on the overall perception among Roma as individuals regarding whether they felt their governments were committed to improving the conditions of the Roma and whether they had experienced any of these improvements. Our expectations are that the proportion of Roma in Hungary and the Czech Republic that report an improvement in their lives will be higher than the corresponding proportions in Bulgaria and Romania.

Table 7 - Life satisfaction among the Roma, 2001–2002.

Full table

The data reported support our hypothesis that the EU accession process is effective in improving conditions for the Roma. Nearly 17% of the Roma surveyed in the Czech Republic believed their lives had improved over the previous 5 years. About 12% of the Roma in Hungary believed their lives had improved. The percentage of Roma in Bulgaria and Romania who felt their lives had improved over the previous 5 years was substantially lower at 5 and 7%, respectively. The survey also provides balance to the improvements recorded here and those discussed in previous sections of the article. Improvements should not overshadow the fact that living conditions for the Roma remain far below acceptable levels. In some instances, the case may be that Roma communities continue to experience the fall-out of the post-communist transitional period as indicated in the following statistics asking whether they (Roma) feel that their lives have deteriorated over the last 5 years.

The percentage of Roma in the Czech Republic who felt their lives had deteriorated was the lowest reported at 29.7%. In Hungary, 57.2% of the Roma surveyed felt their lives had deteriorated over the last 5 years. The percentage of dissatisfied Bulgarian Roma was slightly higher at 57.7%. Nearly 74% of the Roma in Romania felt that their lives were worse in 2001 than in 1996. While the same question was not asked in 2004, preventing a temporal analysis, these attitudes demonstrate that the EU accession process has had some impact — more in member countries — on the situation of the Roma.

Conclusions

An analysis of the conditions of the Roma and comparable groups among the majority population in four countries has allowed us to draw some conclusions about the differential treatment of the Roma. The gaps between the Roma and the majority of similar socio-economic status are generally higher in Bulgaria and Romania than in Hungary and the Czech Republic. This finding supports our hypotheses that countries closer to EU accession will make greater efforts to improve the situation of the Roma. The EU accession process seems to have narrowed the gap between Roma and the majority as illustrated by the survey data.

Analyzing the conditions of the Roma over time lends additional support to our hypothesis. Poverty rates, unemployment rates, and education statistics for the Roma populations in all four countries improved over time, with larger improvements taking place in the member countries. Perhaps the most dramatic improvement was the narrowing of the unemployment gaps in the member countries of Hungary and the Czech Republic. While all of the indicators are inter-dependent, improved employment opportunities for the Roma will presumably have a significant impact on reducing poverty and improving living conditions.

We believe that this work has shown the value of looking beyond state policies in our attempt to assess the impact of the EU accession process on the minorities in candidate states. However, while countries may have satisfied the Copenhagen criteria and introduced and implemented policies that provide for the protection of minorities, our data indicate that the Roma are still substantially worse off than the majority in all four countries. In addition, the absolute values of some of the indicators discussed here paint a very bleak picture of the conditions in which Roma live in these European countries. Further support from the EU will clearly be needed for the gaps to be narrowed further and the overall conditions of the Roma to be improved. Given the high numbers of Roma people in the post-2007 EU, and the low priority of the Roma issue within the old (pre-2004) member states, the EU general policy towards the Roma might need to be reformulated as well.

Notes

¹ Candidate states for which the Copenhagen criteria have been/are applied include: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, and the Slovak Republic (current member states), Bulgaria and Romania (acceding countries), Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey (candidate countries).

² The survey is available at http://roma.undp.sk/.

³ The surveys and data are available at http://vulnerability.undp.sk/. The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Andrey Ivanov from UNDP for his help in locating and using the data.

⁴ This dynamic between the EU and candidate states is not a new phenomenon. The political developments in Greece in the 1960s and 1970s were largely influenced by the political and economic importance of the EC to Greece. The development of democracy in particular was largely shaped by the negotiations with the EC through direct and indirect ways (Tsingos 2001).

⁵ The protection of minorities has been a 'European' concern since the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975. With its emergence as an actor with increased influence, the EU has coordinated efforts with the CSCE/OSCE and the Council of Europe to promote minority rights as a European idea through joint initiatives (Brusis 2003, 4).

⁶ Reports for all countries are available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/key_documents/index_en.htm

⁷ These efforts include attempts by EU administrators to convince candidate governments of the importance of including minority groups in the policy-making process, and advice on how to promote tolerance in candidate societies.

8 For a detailed annual description of the PHARE assistance for the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, see EC (2002a).

9 See, for example, the extensive publications of the European Roma Rights Center available at: www.errc.org and Ringold et al. (2003).

10 Further evidence that the accession process, as opposed to democratization over time, helps to motivate countries toward improving conditions of the Roma is the fact that Roma living in long-time EU member countries in Western Europe often experience living conditions far below those of the general population. According to the Report on the Situation of the Roma in Select Western European Countries presented by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, despite the attention focused on the Roma in Eastern and Central Europe, less attention has been directed at the living conditions of Roma in Western Europe. Roma there continued to suffer from great disparities in housing, health care, employment opportunities, and education, as well as a climate of increased intolerance (Mandorff 2005).

11 In 2004, Bulgaria had a GDP per capita of 8,978 USD, Romania — 8,480; Hungary — 16,814 and the Czech Republic — 19,408. Gini coefficients ranged from 25.4 in the Czech Republic (1996), to 26,9 in Hungary, to 29.2 in Bulgaria, and 31.0 in Romania (UNDP 2006, 330–335).

12 PPP expressed in US dollars is a way of expressing the value of GDP or income from different countries through the use of a common denominator allowing international comparisons.

13 For more discussion of the indicators and methodology used by the UNDP, see UNDP (2005) Introduction: Why These Profiles? http://vulnerability.undp.sk/DOCUMENTS/introduction.pdf.

14 The Bulgarian measure of poverty was set at two-thirds of mean per capita consumption.

15 The poverty measurement used in Romania was set at 60% of mean consumption, per adult equivalent.

16 'Long-term poverty' was defined as those households that experienced poverty four or more times during the panel period, with the poverty line set at one-half of mean adult equivalent income.

17 The poverty measurement used by the United Nations was percentage of population living on or below 50% of the country's median income.

18 This percentage is based on the percentage of individuals living on less than 60% of the average median income in the Czech Republic.

References

1. Barany, Z. (2002) The East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bokulic, S., Bieber, F., Bíró, A.-M. and Cheney, E. (2006) Minority Rights Advocacy in the European Union: A Guide for NGOs in South-East Europe, London: Minority Rights Group International.
3. Brusis, M. (2003) 'The European Union and interethnic power-sharing arrangements in accession countries', JEMIE 3(10): 1–23.
4. Center for International Development and Conflict Management (1995) Minorities At Risk Project, Univeristy of Maryland. Available at: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/mar/tableee.htm
5. CIA World Factbook (2005) Country Studies. Available at: www.cia.gov
6. Commission of the European Communities (2002) Regular Report on Romania's Progress Towards Accession. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2002/ro_en.pdf
7. Commission of the European Communities (2003a) Regular Report on Romania's Progress Towards Accession. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/rr_ro_final_en.pdf
8. Commission of the European Communities (2003b) Regular Report on Bulgaria's Progress Towards Accession. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/rr_bg_final_en.pdf
9. Commission of the European Communities (2004a) Regular Report on Romania's Progress Towards Accession. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2004/rr_ro_2004_en.pdf
10. Commission of the European Communities (2004b) Regular Report on Bulgaria's Progress Towards Accession. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/rr_bg_final_en.pdf
11. Education International (2006) 'A day in the life of...Nadia, teacher in a Roma school', available at: http://www.ei-ie.org/efaids/en/article_detail.php?id=32&theme=educationforall&country=bulgaria
12. European Commission (EC) (1998) 'Composite paper on the Commission Reports 1998, November 4, 1998', available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/1998/composite_en.pdf
13. European Commission (EC) (2002a) 'EU support for Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe', May 2002, Enlargement Information Unit, Brussels. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/pdf/brochure_roma_may2002.pdf
14. European Commission (EC) (2002b) 'Strategy Paper 2002. Towards the enlarged Union — strategy paper and report of the European Commission on the progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries', available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=502DC0700
15. European Commission (EC) (2004) The Situation of the Roma in an Enlarged European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/publications/2005/ke6204389_en.pdf
16. European Council (1993) Conclusions of the Presidency. Available at: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/72921.pdf
17. European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (2005) 'The only hope for the European Roma is the European Union', Equal Voices, Issue 16. Available at: http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_
    cat_content&catid=42de2076e07d2&contentid=42de226753dd4
18. European Parliament (EP) (2000) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm
19. Guglielmo, R. (2004) 'Human rights in the accession process: Roma and Muslims in an enlarging EU', in Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative; EURAC Research, Minority protection and the enlarged European Union: the way forward, Budapest, pp. S.37–S.58.
20. Hughes, J. and Sasse, G. (2003) 'Monitoring the monitors: EU enlargement conditionality and minority protection in the CEECs', Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, issue 1. Available at: http://ecmi.de/jemie/download/Focus1-2003_Hughes_Sasse.pdf
21. Johns, M. (2003) '"Do as I Say, Not As I Do": The European Union, Eastern Europe and Minority Rights', East European Politics and Societies 17(4): 682–699. | Article |
22. Kelley, J. (2004) 'International actors on the domestic scene: membership conditionality and socialization by international institutions', International Organization 58: 425–457.
23. Liegeois, J.-P., Gheorghe, N. and Shuinear, S.N. (1995) 'Roma/gypsies: a European minority', 1995 Minority Rights Group Report.
24. Linden, R.H. (2002) Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and East European States, Oxford: Rowman and Littleford Publishers, pp. 227–244.
25. Mandorff, A.M. (2005) Situation of the Roma in Select Western European Countries, Vienna, Austria: Helsinki Research Foundation.
26. National Democratic Institute (2003) Roma Political Participation in Bulgaria. Available at: http://www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1611_romaassess_020803.pdf
27. Papagianni, K. (2003) 'The Role of European Integration and International Norms on Minority Rights in Estonian and Latvian ethnic Politics in the 1990s', Paper presented at the 99th APSA Meeting; Philadelphia, August 2003.
28. Pridham, G. (1999) 'Complying with the European Union's democratic conditionality: transnational party linkages and regime change in Slovakia, 1993–1998', Europe-Asia Studies 51(7): 1221–1244. | Article |
29. Ram, M. (2003) 'Democratization through European integration: the case of minority rights in the Czech Republic and Romania', Studies in Comparative International Development 38(2): 28–56. | Article |
30. Ringold, D. (2000) Roma and the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Trends and Challenges, Washington, DC: Europe and Central Asia Region, Human Development Unit, World Bank.
31. Ringold, D., Orenstein, M.A. and Wilkens, E. (2003) Roma in an Expanding Europe: breaking the Poverty Cycle, Washington, DC: World Bank.
32. Roma Education Initiative (2007) Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma. Available at: www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/articles_publications/publications/equal_20070329
33. Smith, K.E. (2001) 'Western Actors and the Promotion of Democracy', in J. Zellonka and A. Pravda (eds.) Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Vol. 2, pp. 31–57.
34. Tsingos, B (2001) 'Underwriting Democracy: the European community and Greece', in P.C. Schmitter (ed.) The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 315–347.
35. Tubbax, C. (2005) 'The Largest Trans-European minority', Café Babel: the European Magazine, April 2005.
36. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2001) 'Human development report', available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2001/
37. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2002) Avoiding the Dependency Trap, Regional Data Set. Available at: http://roma.undp.sk/
38. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2004) Millennium Development Goals Reducing Poverty and Social Exclusion in Czech Republic. Available at: http://www.undg.org/archive_does/4438_MDGs_Reducing_Poverty
    _and_Social_Exclusion_in_Hungary_Slovenia_Slovak_Republic_and_Czech_Republic_Report.pdf
39. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2005) Faces of Poverty, Faces of Hope. Available at: http://vulnerability.undp.sk
40. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2006) Human Development Report 2006, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Vachudova, M. (2001) 'The Leverage of International Institutions on Democratizing States: Eastern Europe and the European Union', Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies Working Paper, Fiesole.
42. Vermeersch, P. (2003) 'EU enlargement and minority rights policies in Central Europe: explaining policy shifts in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland', Paper presented at the 8th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities; Columbia University, 3–5 April 2003.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of CEP for their comments and suggestions.

About the authors

Maria Spirova is a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at Leiden University, the Netherlands. She holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and is the author of Political Parties in Post-communist Societies: Formation, Persistence and Change (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007).

Darlene Budd is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Missouri in the United States. She holds a Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.