4 ms·

It's the same in other fields. Eastern European countries currently suffer from a plague of politicians and special interests that funnel EU funds straight to e

• borroka 8y ago
  In the example I was describing above, the money goes to researchers (I was one of the recipients), but since there are no follow-ups, such as some support for researchers that finish the fellowship and are looking for jobs, the downstream effect of the Marie Curie actions is close to 0. You would think that a change of action would swiftly follow the analysis of data, especially after ~ 20 years of Marie Curie actions, but the EU Soviet-style bureaucracies are just interested in their survival and the appearance of effective action.
• bobthechef 8y ago
  Or Western companies. For instance, whenever a country in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) defies the EU, the affiliated pro-federalist media outlets immediately start to claim how these countries are large beneficiaries of EU funds (read: ungrateful). The funny thing is that the economies of these countries are heavily colonized by Western companies and conglomerates that often siphon EU funds back into Western hands. Furthermore, the legal systems in those countries are still reeling from Soviet control and need a serious overhaul. Western companies gladly exploit loopholes and make corrupt deals with post-communist elites to, for example, get at funds or avoid paying enormous amounts of taxes. Certainly, CEE countries have improved a great deal since '89, but the West really doesn't appreciate how traumatic WWII was for these countries, how disruptive the Nazis and the Soviets were, how half a century of Soviet domination scarred them, and how much work needs to be done to undo the damage. It's little wonder Western elites worry when these countries try to address these issues. They (the Western elites) are the beneficiaries of these exploitative practices that gladly employ in what Piketty calls "foreign-owned countries".