Constructing a legitimate argument — Narrative techniques in the Ghana-EU VPA

Abstract

This paper illustrates how an explicit focus on policy practitioner's use of narrative techniques in their policy arguments can be a way to identify when in the policy process risks of ‘good policies’ becoming ‘un-implementable’ emerge. A typology is developed identifying six specific types of narrative techniques used in policy argumentation: Framing, omission, fitting facts, means-to-aims, glorifying, and scapegoating. The typology is used for analysing how stakeholders involved in the Ghana-EU FLEGT VPA use narrative techniques to construct their policy arguments and the implications of this use. The paper shows that a focus on interviewed stakeholder's use of narrative techniques enables the identification of potential areas of tension and contradictions in the narratives upon which the Ghana-VPA is built. It is argued, that the identified use of narrative techniques is to be seen as a result of an implicit urge among stakeholders to ensure consistency in their arguments rather than strategic misappropriations. The implications of research findings for the practical feasibility of the Ghana-EU VPA and the general applicability of the suggested typology are discussed.