Voices from Europe & Central Asia
Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Damir Kaufman on

Indeed! I congratulate all in preparing the Report. I have already referenced it in my own work. It is an important contribution to understanding enforcement and reform efforts in the region.
But, that does not mean we are all somehow free of providing and receiving feedback. This is and will hopefully remain an important part of all free communities.
My perception of bias centers on the Report's reform arguments. Basically, it references the number of comparator countries as important. For example, section 19.2 of the Report (paras 128-132) discusses the introduction of private agents as the only reform option without considering public authority as the executor, since most of the comparator countries introduced private agents. Moreover, there is no analytics on the reform results: in my mind these would at least include number and value of writs enforced, and recovery rates (or how much money was actually collected versus the total debt under enforcement), with all these presented over time. Thus, for example, we would be in a position to see that in the comparator country A enforcement system collects 5 cents on a dollar, and in the comparator country B the recovery rate is 17 cents on a dollar. Would not this be a better indicator of which countries moved towards better enforcement? The Report remains silent. Furthermore, in the context of electronic execution of writs, Croatia's model (para 98) is mentioned as unusual: the reader is left to consider what that means - again no data to provide more insight - is that system good or bad for effectiveness of enforcement? Finally, when the list of the Report's comparator countries that moved to "private" execution is cross-checked with the origins of providers of EU's TA and/or twinning projects (data publicly available) in enforcement reforms across the region, an interesting high correlation occurs linking all these with the funding partner. Hence, my perception of bias. Maybe I am wrong, and I hope I am. Ideology should never trump effectiveness in public policy. Again, congratulations on the work done: we now have a basic comparative picture of the enforcement systems in the region. Hope to see the work on these matters deepened and widened, and free of any interference. Keep up the good work!