Skip to Main Content

Development Cooperation

Selected e-articles

Abstract: Infrastructure investments are the material way of turning sustainable development goals into practice. Climate action requires renewable energy plants, power grids and electric‐vehicle charging infrastructure, in the same way that health requires hospitals, education requires schools or connectivity requires ports. In this context, the Global Gateway can help meet the European Union (EU)'s international pledges, such as on climate finance, by supporting partner countries in the implementation of their sustainable development agendas. It can enable EU industry to enter new growing markets, a win for EU industrial policy. On top of this, it can help economic development in the EU's partner countries, providing an invaluable foreign policy dividend for the EU. In geopolitical terms, the Global Gateway can help the EU better position itself in the global infrastructure and connectivity race. Rule‐based cooperation focussed on a clear set of priorities represents an attractive alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative in several partner countries, starting in Africa. By scaling up cooperation on economic and social infrastructure projects, the EU thus has an opportunity to promote its values and vision of sustainability in a way that is tangible and long‐lasting.

Abstract: In December 2021, the EU member states agreed on the Global Gateway strategy to mobilize public and private funds of up to €300 billion between 2021 and 2027, to invest in digital, climate and energy, transport, health, education, and research fields. With a geographical focus on Africa, Global Gateway links infrastructure investment projects with condition principles—including democratic values, good governance, and transparency—and catalyzes private investment into EU development financing. Against this backdrop, this study explores why EU member states agreed on this new geopolitical instrument. This piece posits that the confluence of three factors enabled the creation of Global Gateway. First, the EU established this new instrument to counter China’s role as a global infrastructure lender in Africa. Second, Global Gateway was possible through the shift to private investment in multilateral development financing. Equally important for the establishment of Global Gateway was the European Commission’s transformational leadership as an entrepreneurial agent in designing this geopolitical strategy of the EU’s power projection. The conclusion outlines future research avenues and enables readers to consider the wider prospects and caveats of the Global Gateway strategy.

Abstract: Prominent conceptualizations of policy coherence for sustainable development focus primarily on the roles of intra-governmental policy processes and institutional interactions in shaping coherence between various agendas and policies. These technocratic understandings of coherence overlook the more political drivers of coherence, such as the vested interests or ideologies that may encourage or hinder efforts to achieve coherence. This paper addresses this gap by drawing on the comparative politics literature to facilitate a political understanding of policy coherence. It introduces an analytical framework hypothesizing how ideas, institutions, and interests (the three I's) may influence policy coherence at different policy stages. As such, it includes measures of how policy coherence is applied by different actors and institutions, and whose ideas and interests may be served by pursuing or not pursuing coherence. This article provides an example of how the framework can be applied to study policy coherence between two prominent international agendas: Agenda 2030 (incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals) and the Paris Agreement. Overall, the paper argues that the three I's influence policy options and shape the ambition and importance given to different agendas, goals and actors in pursuing or resisting policy coherence. This framework is suited for assessing the political divers of policy coherence through being applied to empirical data at global or national levels.

Abstract: EU development policy has in recent years become more contested and politicised. One key factor driving this trend is the increasing influence of populist radical right parties (PRRPs). Previous studies have focused on PRRPs as opposition parties. This contribution breaks new ground by exploring the behaviour of PRRP-led governments in EU development policy. More specifically, the article analyses how and to what extent this behaviour is characterised by “unpolitics,” an approach to undermining EU policymaking. We define “cross-policy blackmailing” and “identity profiling” as two potential strategies of unpolitics in EU development policy and probe these in two case studies. The first case concerns the New European Consensus on Development and the second is the EU’s positioning in the negotiations and signing of the Samoa Agreement. In the first case, we find that PRRP-led governments fundamentally rejected the decision-making rules as well as the norms on migration, gender, and sexual and reproductive health rights, using a strategy of identity profiling. In the second case, PRRP-led governments significantly stalled the conclusion of the agreement by combining cross-policy blackmailing and identity profiling. Based on this analysis, we generalise on the scope conditions of unpolitics in EU development policy.

Abstract: Motivation In European policy debate, conflict, economic crisis, lack of development, population growth, and climate change are often seen as the root causes of migration from Africa. To deter irregular migration to Europe, aid has thus been directed towards these perceived causes. This seems, however, not to deter irregular migration. Purpose We explore the discrepancy between the official discourse of root causes and insights from research on migration decisions; and how discourse and evidence relate to aid. We ask what kind of policy change is needed if aid is possibly used to influence irregular migration. We focus on the motivations and drivers of migration and how development co‐operation may influence these. Methods and approach Considering African migration to Europe, we examine the official European discourse on root causes of irregular migration, highlight recent developments in the academic understanding of migration aspirations and drivers, and investigate various attempts to analyse the impact of foreign aid on assumed “root causes” and migration. Findings Migration is influenced by drivers that differ according to the specific context in which potential migrants decide to migrate or not. Aid to influence migration must be thoroughly adapted to the circumstances of potential migrants. Addressing so‐called root causes may be irrelevant to many potential migrants and will require long‐term change to have any impact. It may even increase migration in the short term. Foreign aid that adopts a blueprint regardless of context is unlikely to deter irregular migration in the short or medium term. Policy implications If irregular African migration to Europe is to be deterred through development co‐operation, European policy‐makers and development practitioners need to elaborate and differentiate between aid‐supported activities through careful understanding of the migration dynamics specific to individual localities and societies.

Abstract: The global economy is producing unequal economic exchanges between countries, including illegitimate transfer of wealth from low‐income countries, which ultimately undermine efforts towards securing robust social welfare systems. This puts policies on trade and finance, corporate governance and circular economy at the centre of the global development puzzle. Policy coherence for development must be understood in the context of the tension between the overarching societal goal of achieving sustainability and the functioning of the global economy. In this article, we focus on the political and legal challenges this puzzle presents, using the case of European Union policies on business, finance and circular economy, which have global impacts. We see these as core areas of law and policy where advances are made but which need to be better positioned within an overarching aim of sustainability.

Abstract: Motivation The European Union (EU) has securitized its development policy with migration conditionalities, resulting in the subordination of development objectives to the externalization of migration control. This has called into question the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU development policy while failing to provide a solution that prevents future refugee crises. How can these trends be reversed? Purpose This article examines the feasibility and implications of peacebuilding conditionalities as an alternative to migration conditionalities with the aim of addressing the root causes of refugee crises, ensuring the effectiveness of EU development policy, and preserving its legitimacy. Methods and approach The article outlines a theoretical framework to categorize development policy conditionalities and better understand their strengths and weaknesses. This is followed by an analysis of the EU’s financial, legal, and electoral framework in order to evaluate peacebuilding conditionalities as an alternative policy option. Findings Peacebuilding conditionalities limit the ability of donor countries to influence migration behaviour while promoting capacity development by ensuring stability in migrants’ countries of origin. Replacing migration conditionalities with peacebuilding conditionalities is a feasible policy option in the current EU framework that can help prevent future refugee crises while encouraging synergy between Member States in development co‐operation—a promising policy area for European integration. Policy implications Peacebuilding conditionalities for development co‐operation would constitute a legitimate, effective, and integrating alternative to migration conditionalities at a time of crisis for the European project. With the prospect of a ceasefire in Libya, this would be especially suitable for a post‐conflict scenario.

Abstract: Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is a form of expert knowledge that is central to migration governance. This article analyses M&E of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), created in 2015 to ‘fight the root causes of migration’. Combining institutionalist accounts with practice theory, we examine whether M&E knowledge production served the instrumental purpose of assessing policy impact or mainly legitimated particular policy actors and positions. We find that M&E did not produce evidence on whether the EUTF met its objectives. However, in the context of the EU's multiple crises, M&E knowledge production served to seek legitimacy not only for the EUTF, but also for the further fusion of development and migration policies, and for the EU as a competent and transparent actor. Our analysis highlights that knowledge use and knowledge production are connected, and that M&E knowledge politics allow for the legitimation of both actors and policies.

Abstract: Motivation Within the efforts of the European Union (EU) to govern migration, the nexus between migration and development has moved centre stage. Analysing how the EU has approached the migration–development nexus in its foreign policy from the perspective of policy coherence for development (PCD) allows this study to examine how far the EU migration–development nexus is coherent at the policy and normative level. Purpose How does the EU conceptualize PCD? To what extent does the EU's external action in the migration–development nexus strengthen or undermine its normative commitment to coherence for development? Methods and approach This article develops a conceptual framework of overall coherence for development, which consists of: (a) policy coherence; and (b) normative coherence for development. Both aspects are analysed through a qualitative content analysis of 18 expert interviews and EU policy documents. Findings The analysis shows that the EU perceives PCD as a policy‐making tool and a technical mechanism to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Furthermore, the EU's approach to the migration–development nexus is incoherent both at the policy and the normative levels. In its policies, much of the focus is on containment of migration to Europe. At the normative level, the EU proclaims a sedentary and place‐bound notion of development. Policy implications The article contributes to the current debates on PCD in the EU and on the EU's external action in the migration–development nexus. In order to foster PCD, the EU should approach the migration–development nexus more holistically.

Abstract:The article examines the evolution of the European Union (EU) development policy, from the United Nations Millennium development goals (MDGs) and, first-ever, global attempt to end poverty, to the present day. It first gives an overview of the literature, noting it is heavily focused on the solidarity-instrumentalism dichotomy, then follows with analysis on how have major global crises, notably, climate crisis, Covid-19 pandemic, and Ukraine crisis, affected and shaped the EU development policy and its evolution. Based on that analysis and the literature, the article summarizes several categories of the factors that have influenced the EU development policy and concludes that the research must go beyond the solidarity-instrumentalism dichotomy and develop more encompassing research tools, to be able to grasp increasing complexities of the development policymaking in the contemporary world. A more appropriate analytical frame should focus on the dual role of the EU development policy, which serves as a bridge between foreign and domestic EU policy, and on its integration with other policies, especially climate, health, and peace.

Abstract: The ‘aid conditionality’ hypothesis as documented in the literature suggests that aid is effective in augmenting growth only in the presence of a sound policy environment. This hypothesis was so influential that its policy recommendation, to provide aid conditional upon recipient domestic policies, is currently the dominant ODA allocation criterion. However non-economic dimensions of development (political and institutional) are increasingly seen as fundamental. For this reason, this paper focuses on the linkage between aid and a non-economic factor like Human Rights (reflecting repression and corruption) as a measure of aid effectiveness, in explaining growth outcomes across 42 Least Developed economies. We find that countries with better protection of human rights experience positive growth from aid receipts, signifying the role of stronger institutions in enabling more effective use of aid. The paper thus concludes that the measurement and monitoring of human rights provision is a useful tool in gauging the likely effectiveness of foreign aid.

Abstract: Recent debates about “green” authoritarianism have focused on the institutional features of state-led coercive environmentalism. However, the role of various non-state actors in the greening of authoritarian states has remained largely unexplored. Carrying out a case study of Vietnamese‒German development cooperation in the environmental and climate spheres, this article examines the interaction between Vietnamese state institutions and international donors. The article argues that donors play an important role in greening the state policy agenda in Vietnam by funding environmental projects and facilitating knowledge sharing. Nonetheless, donors have very limited freedom to push the political process beyond policymaking and foster meaningful policy implementation. Development practitioners in Vietnam often find themselves caught in a policymaking vacuum, where policymaking is a never-ending process and implementation remains limited. These findings raise broader questions about the effectiveness of climate-related development finance for environmental governance under authoritarian regimes.

Abstract: Recognizing that the political environment that once fostered a global culture of top down, conditionality-driven aid delivery is no longer in place, this theoretically informed study provides insight into the emerging ‘aid and/or development effectiveness’ narrative. By exploring a case study of Bangladesh, it offers a nuanced analytical perspective on the role of donor agencies in managing development partnership at the country level. It interweaves a critical review of the concept of country ownership, the historical role of three major European donors, namely FCDO, DANIDA, and GIZ, and the conversation with select stakeholders to illuminate the ineptness of the ‘development effectiveness’ narrative in guiding our efforts aimed at creating a new aid architecture. In particular, our research findings call into question the assumption that donors are committed to the principles of country ownership. Contrary to the claims of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), our study observes that the new language of development effectiveness and/or country ownership did not create a positive space for Bangladesh to manage its own development agenda. Instead of demonstrating their desire to promote self-reliant development, donor agencies and countries appear to have leveraged the development effectiveness rhetoric for advancing their own sociopolitical interests.

Abstract: While researchers investigated human rights mainstreaming in development policy and the allocation of foreign aid across states, we lack systematic evidence of effective implementation of human rights mainstreaming at project level. Drawing on principal-agent-theory, we formulate expectations on the conditions under which implementing agencies of development projects comply with donor governments’ requirement for human rights mainstreaming. Using supervised text classification and mixed effects regressions on 761 German development project proposals, we find that mainstreaming is incomplete across projects and primarily focusses on measures to prevent abuses rather than to proactively promote human rights. Implementing agencies better comply with mainstreaming policies in sectors whose objectives are linked to human right priorities, e.g., in the health or education sectors. Human rights mainstreaming also becomes more likely if agencies have more organizational resources and less autonomy from the donor government. The human rights record of the partner government does not influence the extent of human rights mainstreaming but affects how exactly mainstreaming is implemented. Specifically, when partner governments violate human rights, implementing agencies avoid working with state actors and prioritize empowering marginalized groups. This suggests that implementing agencies bypass state actors to reduce the operational and political costs of integrating human rights in development projects. Our findings underscore the need to be attentive to the costs of human rights mainstreaming for development cooperation agencies and implement better follow-up and donor enforcement mechanisms to close the gap between donors’ human rights commitments and effective implementation at project level.

Abstract: This paper focuses on employment and the labour market as a key mechanism leading from growth to poverty reduction in Africa. Given that the development goals are economy-wide outcomes—less poverty, shared prosperity, more and better job opportunities, etc.—the required analysis must be at the market level. Individual-level analysis is not enough. The paper brings together insights from labour economics and from development economics. It draws upon Fields’ work over decades at the intersection of these two fields. A concluding section presents suggestions for policy analysis.

Further sources

If you are unable to access the article you need, please contact us and we will get it for you as soon as possible.

Data Protection Notice   Cookie Policy & Inventory
Library Catalogue
Journals on all devices
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more
Newspapers on all devices