Sarah Delputte

An end to Nordic exceptionalism? Europeanisation and Nordic development policies

ABSTRACT The Nordic countries have traditionally been praised for their generous and advanced development policies. Recently, however, it has been claimed that the Nordic model has faded: that the Nordic donors have become more similar to other European donors. One possible reason for such trends is influences from EU policies, that is, Europeanisation. This article critically evaluates such claims by presenting arguments for and against Europeanisation effects. We argue that changes have indeed taken place. The Nordic exceptionalism has been eroded. At the same time, a convergence of European aid policies has occurred. The question is if this is the consequence of Europeanisation – or is it rather a result of Nordicisation (the Nordic countries influencing the EU), or perhaps like-mindisation (a broader set of progressive member states having impact upon EU policies)? We suggest that Europeanisation has been extremely weak while there is strong evidence of Nordicisation but also, and increasingly, of like-mindisation. Today, a core group of mainly northern member states, including the Nordics, are the main driving forces behind European aid convergence.

Europeanisation of aid budgets: nothing is as it seems

ABSTRACT In 2002 the European Union (EU) decided to gradually increase its official development assistance (ODA) towards the ‘0.7% norm’ by 2015. Both in terms of policy and in terms of procedures, this constituted a remarkable integrationist shift in EU development policy. However, it is unclear to what extent this integrationist shift (bottom-up) has effectively enhanced the EUs influence over its member states (top-down). More than 13 years after the EUs explicit goal to Europeanise the ODA issue, this article aims to assess to what extent it has been successful. More specifically, it analyses the impact of the EUs ‘0.7% norm’ on the national aid budgets. Through an inductive analysis involving 15 member states over a large time span, a comprehensive assessment of Europeanisation is provided. The conclusion reads that nothing is like it seems: ostensible compliance with EU targets appears mostly unrelated to the EU, while the EU might have contributed to non-compliance.

The Normative Distinctiveness of the European Union in International Development: Stepping Out of the Shadow of the World Bank?

Although the EU has shown a strong ambition to put a distinctive stamp on the international aid agenda over the past 15 years, it has also been pointed out that its policies suffer from a series of collective action problems. This article explores how both relate to one another. This article examines the EUs normative distinctiveness in contrast to the World Bank, focusing on policy norms in the field of governance, aid effectiveness and social development. We argue that collective action problems do not necessarily hamper EU distinctiveness: they are also a symptom of a strong EU desire to pressure European actors to come up with norms that pacify disagreements.

Equal partnership between unequal regions? Assessing deliberative parliamentary debate in ACP-EU relations

Abstract This paper develops an analytical framework to assess the quality of deliberation in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA). Despite rhetoric on ‘equal partnership’ between ACP and EU countries, academic assessments of the Cotonou Agreement point to the lasting asymmetrical power relationship, most visible in the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations. However, this paper assesses to what extent the JPA debate on EPAs can approach the ideal type of deliberation. The empirical investigation is based on participatory observation, semi-structured interviews and an analysis of primary documents, including the attendance lists of 29 JPA sessions, more than 40 resolutions and 120 parliamentary questions related to the trade-development nexus.

Framing the climate-development nexus in the European Union

Abstract This paper aims to assess the framing of adaptation in the development discourse of the European Union (EU). Theoretically, three frames (security, growth and justice/equity) are constructed. Overall, we find clear traces of the EU’s normative aspirations as a global actor. Instead of framing climate change as a national or global security threat, human security implications of climate change are emphasised, representing it as a threat to individual livelihoods. Justice/equity considerations are also voiced, acknowledging the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing countries. In terms of agency, we find mostly a global, top-down framing of adaptation in developing countries.

Environmental Instruments in Development Cooperation: Promoting Better Development and Environmental Outcomes?

This chapter focuses on the EU’s track record of integrating, or mainstreaming, environmental objectives into in its development policy. The chapter sets out the relevant legal and policy framework before briefly introducing the main policy instruments into which environmental objectives can be integrated, such as the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund, as well as the Global Public Goods and Challenges (GPGC) programme. The chapter then empirically examines how effectively environmental integration is implemented in the 2014–2020 development cycle in Ghana with a specific focus on climate policy integration. Despite changes to the EU development policy and practice over the years, difficulties still remain in integrating the environment in practice. At times environmental objectives can even appear at odds with development objectives.

EU Donors and health system strengthening: the love-hate relationship with the Global Fund

ABSTRACT Since the 2000s, the proliferation of Global Health Initiatives such as the Global Fund have dramatically changed the field of global health. The European Union and several of its Member States have played an important role in the development of the Global Fund and have contributed considerable budgets to it. While the Fund has been successful in fighting priority diseases, it has also been criticized for impacting negatively on countries’ health systems, which provoked a debate on health system strengthening (HSS) within the organization. Drawing on a literature review, aid statistics, interviews at headquarter and field level, and document analysis, this article researches the relation between EU donors and the Global Fund, with an explicit focus on the HSS debate. The findings indicate a ‘love-hate relationship’. EU donors have loved the Global Fund’s innovative institutional set-up and its ‘saving lives’ approach involving quick results. However, over the years they have become more critical about its narrow focus, advocating a shift towards more HSS. Whereas this has been partly successful at headquarters level, most notably the incorporation of concrete HSS commitments in the Global Fund’s strategic documents, challenges at local level constrain their translation into funding and implementation measures.

The Global Health Policies of the EU and its Member States: A Common Vision?

Background: This article assesses the global health policies of the European Union (EU) and those of its individual member states. So far EU and public health scholars have paid little heed to this, despite the large budgets involved in this area. While the European Commission has attempted to define the ‘EU role in Global Health’ in 2010, member states are active in the domain of global health as well. Therefore, this article raises the question to what extent a common ‘EU’ vision on global health exists. Methods: This is examined through a comparative framing analysis of the global health policy documents of the European Commission and five EU member states (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Denmark). The analysis is informed by a two-layered typology, distinguishing global health from international health and four ‘global health frames,’ namely social justice, security, investment and charity. Results: The findings show that the concept of ‘global health’ has not gained ground the same way within European policy documents. Consequently, there are also differences in how health is being framed. While the European Commission, Belgium, and Denmark clearly support a social justice frame, the global health strategies of the United Kingdom, Germany, and France put an additional focus on the security and investment frames. Conclusion: There are different understandings of global/international health as well as different framings within relevant documents of the EU and its member states. Therefore, the existence of an ‘EU’ vision on global health is questionable. Further research is needed on how this impacts on policy implementation.