THE JEAN MONNET PROGRAMME AS A TOOL TO REINFORCE THE ROLE OF THE EU AS A REGIONAL AND GLOBAL ACTOR

This article aims to analyse the Jean Monnet programme as a soft power instrument of the European Union to achieve its objectives in the international arena. This research, through a quantitative and comparative analysis, explores the tendencies of the Jean Monnet Programme in terms of number of Jean Monnet projects per year in the countries, which have benefitted the most from the programme. From this study, it has emerged that regions neighbouring the European Union have trends very different from other third countries that are also active participants in the Jean Monnet Programme.


INTRODUCTION
Since 2014 the Erasmus plus programme is the core instrument that the European Union has adopted in the field of education and youth. The EU through the Erasmus plus programme aims to achieve not only the objective of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020), but also the broader objectives of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth of the Europe 2020 strategy [6. P. 57]. Compared to the previous programmes in the field of education -Lifelong-learning programme (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013) and Socrates II (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006), the EU has reinforced also the international dimension of the programme brooding the possibilities of cooperation with neighbourhood countries and third countries of almost every region of the world. This makes of the Erasmus plus programme a key tool of soft power for the EU.
The Erasmus plus programme gathered all the previous European programmes in the field of education and youth and it is composed of three main directions or "key activities", as they are called in the EU documents, which are: mobility, cooperation for innovation and support for policy reforms. This means that the sub-programmes of Erasmus plus are classified into these three main categories. Out of this classification in key activities, but still part of the Erasmus plus programme, is the Jean Monnet Programme. Such programme aims at supporting high quality and excellence in teaching and research in the area of European Union studies in any country of the world [3. P. 188].
The budget of the Jean Monnet programme is very limited and it amounts to only 1,9% of the Erasmus plus programme [7. P. 61]. Despite this, the Jean Monnet programme has registered a great success since it was launched in 1990. That is demonstrated by the fact that since the Jean Monnet Programme exists more than 3000 projects (Jean Monnet Modules, Chairs and Centres of Excellence) in 78 countries of the world have been financed [10. P. 56].
This article aims at analysing the Jean Monnet programme as soft power tool of the European Union to strengthen its role a regional and global actor. In addition to the introduction, this article is structured in four main parts and the conclusion. Firstly, it will be explored more in detail the Jean Monnet programme and its evolution since it was established. Subsequently, the methodology and the main sources used in this article will be described. The third and fourth part of this article consists in analysing the data collected and interpreting them.

BRIEF HISTORY AND MAIN FEATURES OF THE JEAN MONNET PROGRAMME
The Jean Monnet programme, which until 2007 was called Jean Monnet Action, was established in 1989 and the first pilot projects started in 1990. Such programme is a response of the European Commission to the request of academia, demanding support to update their curricula offering subjects on EU integration matters [5. P. 13]. Such demand form the academia arrives in a period when the European integration process is in an ascending phase. The end of 80ies is signed by a period of reforms in Brussels after a long period of political stagnation in the European integration process. In 1986, the Single European Act, which was the first significant reform of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, was signed. The Single European Act set the basis for a deepening phase of the European integration process, fixing the objective of creating a European single marked by the end of 1992. The European integration process began a new phase where more policies were elaborated in Brussels and specialists in European integration matters were more and more needed.
The Jean Monnet programme was initially only developed at European level in the members states of the European Union. Such programme gradually was extended to other countries, for instance to Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995, after their accession to the EU, and until 2001 it had mostly a European dimension. In 2001, the Jean Monnet programme, admitting any country of the world, obtained a global dimension.
Professors and universities of all over the world can implement different types of activities in the framework of the Jean Monnet programme. Generally, the types of activities are divided into three main groups: teaching activities, research and dissemination activities and support to association active in the sphere of European integration. The Jean Monnet teaching activities can be of three main types: Jean Monnet Modules, Jean Monnet Chairs and Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence. The Jean Monnet Modules are compact courses, which can either analyse specific aspects of the European integration process or be multidisciplinary courses. The Jean Monnet Chairs are teaching posts assigned to one professor, who teaches specialized courses on European Integration matters and the number of teaching hours is higher compared to the Jean Monnet Module. Since 1998, it was introduced a third type of Jean Monnet project in the field of teaching and research: the Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence. This is the highest recognition that an institution can receive and it can be awarded only when the research and teaching activities are supervised by a Jean Monnet professor. The Jean Monnet programme supports also the organization of events of disseminations activities, such as con-ferences and debates both with policy makers and civil society. Such kind of projects until 2013 were called "Information and research activities" and now, with the current Jean Monnet Programme are called "Jean Monnet Projects" [3. P. 214]. The last type of activities supported by the Jean Monnet Programme are the support to Associations of professors and researchers active in the study and research of the European Integration process.
The selection process of the Jean Monnet projects is based on the academic merits of the applicant(s) following a process of independent and rigorous peer review. Once the independent experts assess the applications, they provide the list of the proposed project to finance to a selection committee composed by representatives of the EU member states and of the European Parliament. The European Commission, after that, confirms the list of projects that will be financed [12. P. 86].

METHODOLOGY
Two research methodologies have been applied in this paper to study the Jean Monnet programme as soft power tool of the European Union to strengthen its role as a regional and global actor: quantitative and comparative analyses.
The data for the quantitative analysis have been obtained from the Jean Monnet directory, an online tool created by the European Commission, where it is possible to find the Jean Monnet projects financed by the European Union since the Jean Monnet programme exists [2]. Such database enabled to identify which projects have been financed every year, in which country, in which university, the type of project that was implemented and other types of information.
The quantitative analysis aimed at: -Identify the geographical coverage of the programme and in particular determine the countries where the Jean Monnet programme has been implemented so far; -Determine the presence of Jean Monnet projects in terms of number of projects per country and the trends per year.
Such data have been reported in tables, which enabled the comparative analysis of this study. The comparative analysis aimed at analysing the trends of project both from the temporal point of view (number of projects per year in each country) and from the geographical one (number of projects per country and per region).
Differently from other European funded programmes, the Jean Monnet Programme has not yet sufficiently analysed in scientific researches. The majority of the references of this article are primary sources, such as EU legislation, EU documents related to the call for proposals for the Jean Monnet projects and other publication of the European Commission about the Jean Monnet Programme, carried out to celebrate anniversaries of the existence of the Programme. Other useful documents have been the publications of the European Commission after the Jean Monnet conferences, which since 2002 take place one a year in Brussels [9; 11].
This analysis further develops the study carried out by Pauzaite Z. & Krisciunas K. [6], who explored the tendencies of development of the Jean Monnet Action in the period 1989-2010. Pauzaite & Krisciunas' study is also a quantitative analysis of the Jean Monnet programme, but it was focused of the general tendencies of the programme during the two decades of its existence. This analysis further develops that study, exploring more in depth the trends of the Jean Monnet programme as a tool of soft power to maximize its goals both at regional and at global level.

TRENDS OF THE JEAN MONNET PROGRAMME
This section of the article aims to analyse the trends of the Jean Monnet Programme both in geographical and temporal terms. Table 1 shows the progressive geographical expansion of the Jean Monnet programme, indicating in which year new countries were awarded of at least one Jean Monnet project. As stated in the introduction of this article, the Jean Monnet programme, allowing the participation of any country of the world since 2001, gained more and more a global dimension. Before that date, only EU member states, with some exceptions, could take part in the Jean Monnet programme. The exceptions are: Canada, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Switzerland. Canada was the first non-European country to implement a Jean Monnet project in 1992 and in 1998 also Switzerland started to participate in the Jean Monnet programme. As for Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, their participation in the programme is linked to their progressive involvement in the European integration process after the fall of the Berlin wall. Such countries were, together with East Germany, the first countries to benefit of the Tempus programme in 1990 [8. P. 9]. In 1995, it took place the fourth EU enlargement, when Austria, Finland and Sweden became members of the European Union. Since that year, these countries started to participate in the Jean Monnet programme at the same conditions of the other 12 European Union member states. The period from 2001 is signed by the extension of the Jean Monnet programme to all the countries of the world. As table 1 shows, in 2001 twenty-two new countries were awarded of at least a Jean Monnet programme. Since then the Jean Monnet programme constantly expanded to new countries of the world and now 78 countries have developed at least one Jean Monnet project. This fact indicates that since 2001 the Jean Monnet programme has been a tool that the European Union has developed to strengthen its role as global actor. It is important to underline that in the award criteria since 2007 the Jean Monnet Programme has introduced the "innovative character" criterion to assess the project proposals [1]. The "innovative character" of a project is when a country or a university had never benefitted before of the Jean Monnet programme. This is tool, which is still existing in the current Jean Monnet programme, is a facilitator of the expansion in new regions of the world of the Jean Monnet programme.
The number of projects awarded to non-European Union countries is also a good indicator to analyse the Jean Monnet programme as a tool that enhances the role of the European Union as a regional and as a global actor. In   The table shows which countries were awarded the most of Jean Monnet projects and how many projects were assigned to each country every year. Regarding the number of projects per year, it is possible to notice some tendencies:

Groups of countries
1) The countries that became EU member states between 2004 and 2013 were awarded of the highest number of Jean Monnet projects (especially Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czech Republic) compared with other regions of the world. Moreover, these countries tend to receive a number of Jean Monnet projects higher before their accession than after. This can be even better notice in table 3, where it is indicated the number of average projects awarded in each country before and after the accession to the EU. Poland and Hungary are the most striking cases with a drop of 71% and 71,7% of Jean Monnet projects after their accession to the European Union. Almost all the countries belonging to this category have decreased their participation in the Jean Monnet programme in term of number of projects with the exception of Estonia, Slovenia and Croatia. 2) Looking at table 2, it is possible to notice that some Eastern membership countries and to a less extent some countries of the Western Balkan region in the last few years have increased their participation in the Jean Monnet programme. Probably the most striking case is Ukraine, awarded of 24 Jean Monnet projects in the period 2010-14, which is 75% of the projects it has obtained since it can participate in the Jean Monnet programme. The same tendency can be noticed in Moldova and Belarus. Re-garding the Western Balkan region Serbia is maybe the most significant case, but this trend is less marked compared to Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
3) A third trend that can be noticed in table 2 is that some countries tend to have a more stable and constant number of projects every year, while others tend to be "more instable", registering specific years where the number of Jean Monnet projects is very high and other periods when the number is considerably lower. This can be seen in statistical terms calculating the variation of the number of projects that every country has since it can participate to the Jean Monnet programme. The last column of table 2 indicates the variation for each country. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic are the countries with the highest variation. Turkey also is a country with a high variation, registering periods with a high number of Jean Monnet projects (from 2001 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2014) and a period when the number of projects is considerably less (from 2004 to 2010). To a less extent, Ukraine could be included as a country that registers a high level of variation. On the opposite, Canada, China, New Zealand, Russia and the United States are countries with a considerable number of Jean Monnet projects (all above 20 projects in total) and with a low level of variation.

ANALYSIS OF THE THREE TRENDS
In order to analyse the first trend above described, the tendency of drop of Jean Monnet projects in countries after their accession to the EU, it is interesting to compare data between new EU Member states and old EU Member states. This comparison could help to understand if such drop is a phenomenon that happened in all the EU countries or only in some specific regions. Table 4 regroups the data of the Jean Monnet projects per year and per county in the old EU Member states (or EU 15). This table shows that the drop of Jean Monnet projects does not happen in the old Member States as it was described before for the new Member States (EU enlargements 2004(EU enlargements , 2007(EU enlargements and 2013. Some countries have a very high variation (such Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom), but for them there is not a specific year of change when the average number of Jean Monnet projects changed as much as for some of the New Member States. A possible explanation of such a drop of projects could be the decrease of interest in EU matters after the accession to the EU. To confirm this hypothesis it would be interesting to consult not only the numbers of project financed by the EU, but also the number of applications submitted by the universities and professors of those countries that registered a considerable decrease of Jean Monnet projects after their accession to the European Union. The support of the European Union through dissemination activities the Jean Monnet programme in the framework of the enlargement strategy to facilitate the integration of the new countries in the European integration process could be an additional explanation to this trend. Such support from the EU was probably reduced after the accession of those countries to the EU and this could explain the drop projects.  Countries 1990Countries 1991Countries 1992Countries 1993Countries 1994Countries 1995Countries 1996Countries 1997Countries 1998Countries 1999  The second trend described in the previous section of the article is that some Eastern Partnership counters (especially Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus) and in Western Balkan countries (especially Serbia) have registered in the last few years a constant and rapid increase of Jean Monnet projects. This tendency could be explained by the fact that the EU communicated to these countries prospects of a deeper cooperation and involvement in the European integration process (for instance the Eastern Partnership). To have a clearer picture to understand this trend, also in this case it would be useful to consult the tendency of the number of applications submitted by the professors and Universities of these countries.
The third trend noticed is the opposition between countries with stable amount of Jean Monnet projects and countries with unstable number of Jean Monnet projects per year. In practical terms, to the first category, as described in the previous section of this article, belong Canada, China, Russia, New Zeeland and the United States. To the second category can be included Turkey, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. To the second category can be included also some of the European Member States that participate since the beginning of the programme in 1990, namely Italy, France, United Kingdom and Greece. This tends can be interpreted by the fact that countries neighbouring the European Union are more affected by the EU integration dynamics. Turkey is a very interesting case, as it is possible to notice three periods: two periods of "Euro-enthusiasm", marked by a high number of Jean Monnet projects and one period in between, marked by a considerable drop of Jean Monnet projects. Third countries defined as "stable" in terms of number of Jean Monnet projects, on the opposite, have a constant number of projects every year, which varies very little from year to year.

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of this article enabled to understand as the Jean Monnet Programme turned from an instrument to reinforce the European integration internally (among the EU member states) to an instrument reinforcing also the external dimension of the European Union. More specifically, at external level thee main trends of have been identified: 1) The Jean Monnet Programme was a facilitator of the European integration process for the enlargements which took place in 2004, 2007 and 2013. After the accession to the EU the majority of countries registered a considerable decrease in terms of Jean Monnet projects; 2) EU Neighbouring countries register an increasing interest in the Jean Monnet programme, especially after 2010.
3) EU Neighbouring countries are more affected by the European integration dynamics then third countries. This has been demonstrated by the variance of the number of Jean Monnet projects. Third countries tend to have a more stable number of projects every year, while neighbouring countries tend to have a number of project per year more variable.
These trends seem to indicate that the Jean Monnet programme is a tool reinforcing the role of European Union as regional and global actor especially in the countries, which have accessed to the EU, countries that are potential member of the EU and other neighbouring counties, which are closely affected by the European integration dynamics.