SPr1qg

The National Coordination of EU Policy in Latvia 91
governments, the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government
is involved, as is the Union of Local Governments, but there is no formal
representation of the regions. Second, its limited experience and the rather
abstract terms in which its strategic ambitions have been defined have
the consequence that Latvia is reactive to EU initiatives rather than bringing
forward proposed actions of its own. Third, the presence of a group of
highly skilled EU specialists has worked to isolate the administration from
the political level. Due to frequent changes in government, politicians have
not been EU specialists and have relied to a large degree on their officials.
Explaining the system
Two moments have been decisive in shaping Latvia’s system for coordinating
EU policy. The first, in 1997/98, concerned the sorting by the Union
of the candidate states into two groups. Latvia’s listing among the states
that had made less progress was interpreted as a signal that its coordination
system needed to be improved. In response, the government of G. Krasts
(1997–1998) acted to transfer direct responsibility for coordination to the
PM, in order to enable Latvia to meet the challenges of accession — mainly,
implementation of the acquis — and to catch up with the first group. The
second critical juncture was accession, which required an overhaul of the
coordination system to manage the far more exacting and divergent re -
quirements. In its response to each, Latvia learned from the experience of
how other member states managed the demands respectively of pre-accession
and full membership, but did not go so far as to adopt particular models.
Both critical junctures arose from external pressures. Indeed, external
factors in the form of functional pressures were important in shaping Latvia’s
system for the coordination of EU policy during pre-accession and after
1 May 2004. For example, in the late 1990s, pressure from the EU, the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (WB) supplied the main
motivation for undertaking reform of the administration. The aim was to
create the administrative capacity necessary for the adoption of the acquis of
both the EU and WB. 17 So influential was the role of international donors
and technical experts, that national ownership was threatened at times.
17
Reinholde I. Policy Transfer in Public Administration: How it Works in Practice. Viešoji
Politika Ir Administravimas, no. 16, 2006, pp. 53–65.