European Union Development Policy Research Articles

Evolution of the European Union Development Policy towards India

Abstract India was the first country in South Asia to establish diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (EEC). Once, the country was one of the top beneficiaries of the EEC development assistance. However, this article traces the evolution of development policy with India and how the relationship has evolved between the two partners over time. Particularly, the discussion focuses on the development cooperation between the European Union (EU) and India from 1957 to 2020. A major shift took place in 2004 when the EU and India became strategic partners, and India is the only country from South Asia that has established a strategic partnership with the EU. The study also explores the founding principles of the relationship between both partners. The qualitative research method is applied here in the empirical setting to explain the crux of diplomatic relations and development cooperation. Likewise, we found here, through the latest results, that EU–India relations were established and strengthened in the past decade. The EU also concluded some trade negotiations, but the complete free-trade agreements (FTAs) are still in the dialogue phase.

Dynamics of EU Central and Eastern European donors’ development cooperation

The article deals with both qualitative and quantitative aspects of development assistance provided by the 11 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that are members of the European Union (EU). The aim is to answer the question of what are the major determinants of their involvement in development cooperation. It also aims to understand the controversy surrounding the development policies of these donors and to assess the impact of past determinants on the current situation. Our study employs a combination of data analysis (based on Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD – statistics) and a literature review. In order to allow the examination of trends, constant prices have been applied throughout the study. Our research operates both on absolute (volumes of development aid given to and offered by the countries in mind) and relative data (bilateral to total ODA ratio and regional distribution of bilateral aid). The analysis reveals that the CEE EU donors’ spending on development assistance grew 463% over the 2004–2021 period. In 2021, they accounted for 2.4% of global aid, which was not a significant share globally, though noteworthy at the level of EU development aid spending. We found a clear dominance of the multilateral channel in the distribution of CEE EU aid fluctuating between 65–90%, mainly through EU institutions. In terms of bilateral activities, CEE donors chose their poorer European neighbours as their main aid recipients, with the share ranging from 24% to 76%. There are two main types of factors that determine the aid activities of the actors analysed: interests, which set the course of bilateral flows, and institutional factors (i.e., EU development policy and countries' accession to the OECD Development Assistance Committee), which played an equally important role. The relative importance of the two determinants has varied with changing circumstances over time.

Poland in the EU Development Policy: Active Participant or Passive Donor?

Accession to the European Union (EU) significantly impacted the structure and volume of Poland’s Official Development Assistance (ODA). Since 2004, most of the Polish aid has been distributed through multilateral channels (annually 73% on average), with the dominant position among them of the EU (annually 90% of multilateral ODA and at the same time 66% of total ODA). The EU remains the main administrator of Polish aid resources. Therefore, the main aim of this article is to define the contribution (both in political and financial terms) that Poland makes to the European Union’s development policy. It is no less important to verify the state’s activity level in shaping this policy, which is related to promoting foreign policy interests (long-term and short-term) in the EU forum.

The Trade Component in European Union Development Policy

The study aims to define trade as one of the important components of European Union (EU) development policy. This has emerged since the establishment of the European Community, but it has formed along with development throughout the growth of the EU. Furthermore, this debate presents an example from South Asia to test the applicability of trade aspects in EU development assistance. Historical methods helped here to assess the EU’s overall aid and trade instrument of the EU, and its compatibility with development policy. In this discourse, there is a need to find the EU’s motive behind the trade component with development, where the 2007 Lisbon Treaty referred to it as complementary treatment for third countries. The finding mainly indicated that trade facilitation is a central backbone of development, so it is a two-way process of facilitations and opportunities.

Evolution of the EU development policy - from altruism to the interest instrumentalism and beyond

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.

Peacebuilding conditionalities: An alternative to migration conditionalities for European Union development policy

SummaryMotivationThe 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?PurposeThis 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 approachThe 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.FindingsPeacebuilding 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 implicationsPeacebuilding 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.

Gender mainstreaming in the European Union development policy: the Tunisian case.

This paper examines gender mainstreaming in the European Union development policy to Tunisia. The main objective of this paper is to analyse the way in which Gender Mainstreaming is included in the European Union Development polity in a strategic country such as Tunisia. In doing this, I will examine to which extent the Gender Mainstreaming integration is genuinely achieving its aim of transforming unequal gender relations. The first section of the paper develops the theoretical frame. The second section explains the research methodology. The third section explains the research results showing how the European Union has overlooked a unique opportunity that would has given the chance to integrate Gender Mainstreaming in the post-revolution European Union development policy, into the national public policies and lastly, in establishing a more inclusive dialogue with an embryonic civil society and mature feminist movement. The paper concludes with the hope that this study will serve to guide and promote, in first place, a real integration of a transformative gender mainstreaming in the EU development policy and in second place, to boost the EU role as promoter of possible national reforms which will enable the implementation of transformative gender mainstreaming in national policies breaking once for all with the artificial neutrality of public policies.

The Rationales Behind the EU-OACPS Agreement: Process, Outcome, Contestations

This article examines the rationales of the European Union (EU) and the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) in the preparations and negotiations of the successor to the Cotonou Agreement, paying particular attention to contested issues. It argues that the EU-OACPS Agreement constitutes a fundamental break from past practices, at least apparently: with regards to form, it introduces an unprecedented framework for cooperation, articulated in a common base with three distinct regional pillars; in terms of substance, it proposes a list of equally important strategic priorities, thus going beyond the previous focus on development. Furthermore, unlike its predecessor but like many other agreements signed by the EU with third states, it sets out a comprehensive political partnership for mutually beneficial outcomes. This article, importantly, unravels sources of tensions between and within the two sides. It also shows that negotiations were more symmetrical than in previous instances, not least because contentious issues such as aid volumes and trade cooperation fall outside the remit of the EUOACPS Agreement, and less participatory, as they were largely conducted by a small number of official representatives, with limited involvement of other stakeholders. EU-OACPS Agreement, Cotonou Agreement, post-Cotonou, ACP Group, African Union, EU development policy

The Politicization of the Migration–Development Nexus: Parliamentary Discourse on the European Union Trust Fund on Migration

AbstractThe European Union's development policy has become increasingly intertwined with other policy fields, which erodes the objectives of this policy domain in their own right. We specifically look at the linkages with migration policy, which has been a highly politicized EU policy domain. This article assesses the EU migration–development discursive linkages by addressing two related questions: how and to what extent has this nexus been politicized in Europe? We focus on two dimensions of politicization, namely salience and the polarization of opinions within the context of national parliaments. Through a conceptualization of argumentation lines this article sheds light on how the nexus has been translated into political communication by political actors. We conclude that there are varying, often opposing, argumentation lines on how the migration–development nexus is conceived – that are more complex than the distinction between ‘preventive’ and ‘restrictive’ approaches as identified in the literature on EU external migration policy.

Strengthening the Development Partnership between the EU and South Asia: A Contemporary Analysis

The relations between European Union (EU) and South Asia are not new. However, South Asia is one of the fastest growing economies of the world; the EU’s development policy has given less attention to this region. This paper aims to elucidate and evaluate the EU engagement towards South Asia through development policy and generate an argument on reasons for the EU to strengthen its strategy in the region. Pursuing its comprehensive attention towards the region, the EU intends to address different development- related challenges under its ‘Agenda for Change’ initiation. The main question addressed in this research is ‘Why South Asia is important for the EU?’ The discussion below attempts to incorporate empirical analysis regarding challenges and prospects for the EU in the region. In terms of theoretical approach, this paper follows a neoliberal perspective to analyse the EU development policy. The main findings of the research is that however the EU has strengthened its development partnership with South Asia, the EU is still not considered as a main actor in the region.

EU development policy: evolving as an instrument of foreign policy and as an expression of solidarity

This article introduces the special issue on the evolution of European Union development policy, against the background of fundamental challenges that have emerged since the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. The special issue’s objective is to highlight the complex dynamics of a policy area that is called on to address the massive challenges of poverty, inequality, healthcare capacity, climate change, insecurity and weak governance in countries of the global south, and at the same time support European foreign policy objectives including political stability, migration management, access to resources and markets. In this introductory article, we attempt to sketch the broad outlines of the conceptual and practical dilemmas faced by a policy area that is supposed to be able to fix almost any problem. We observe that European development policy’s evolution is driven by the tension between its raison d’être as a concrete expression of global solidarity and international cooperation, and its increasing instrumentalisation in the service of European economic and security interests. We highlight some of the key challenges that have emerged in the last decade, including rising populist nationalism and Brexit within Europe, the changing nature of relationships between Europe and countries who receive EU aid, and the changing nature of development cooperation itself, exemplified by the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. We outline the specific contributions the articles in this special issue make to research and policy debates on the themes we raise in this introduction. We conclude that the battle between the forces of solidarity and instrumentality has evolved EU development policy into an impossibly complex arena of competing norms, practices and institutions, which raises many open questions for future research.

The Impact of Brexit on the EU Development Policy: Selected Political Issues

AbstractThe European Union (EU) is the most generous donor of international development cooperation—it transfers more than a half of the world’s Official Development Assistance (ODA). In fact, the EU development policy is depending on three major contributors: France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK), which are also among the top countries making the largest transfers to development cooperation. However, special attention should be paid to the UK, belonging to the avant-garde of international development cooperation. The United Kingdom is not only a part of the EU assistance wallet but also an important partner in shaping the development policy. This article attempts to answer the main research question: what impact will Brexit have on the EU development policy? The analysis covers the political plane, and the following elements will be taken into consideration: the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the organisation on shaping the EU development policy (its geographical and thematic concentration), and the ability to fulfil development commitments, which were undertaken by the Member States and the organisation. Consequently, Brexit may lead to reshaping the EU partnership with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), as well as undermine the EU’s ability to meet its obligations in the development area.

Under the guise of resilience: The EU approach to migration and forced displacement in Jordan and Lebanon

ABSTRACTBuilding “resilience” to insecurity and crisis is high on the European Union (EU) agenda. EU uptake of this buzzword is especially significant with regard to migration and forced displacement. Uncertainty, however, remains about what resilience is, how it translates into practice, and what its implications are. In this article, we analyze EU humanitarian and development policies and provide empirical insight into resilience-building in Jordan and Lebanon. We show that EU resilience thinking highlights strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus, responsibilizing crisis-affected states, and framing refugees as an economic development opportunity for refugee-hosting states. We also find that how resilience translates into practice depends on the local context and interests of the actors involved. For the EU, resilience-building is primarily a refugee containment strategy that could jeopardize the stability of refugee-hosting states. We conclude that resilience-building in Jordan and Lebanon may ultimately threaten rather than safeguard the security of Europe.

The Evolution of the EU’s Development Policy: Turning Full Circle

Recent European Union (EU) policy discussions emphasize the need to reinforce linkages between the EU’s external policies. This has spurred criticism of the EU’s development policy losing its status as a self-standing policy area, instead being increasingly instrumentalized for broader external action purposes. This article seeks to contextualize and contribute to this debate by means of a long-term analysis of the status of development policy within the EU’s broader external action. More specifically, it analyses how EU development policy has been (re-)framed in key policy documents over time, analysing three distinct periods i.e. (1) the period before the Maastricht Treaty, (2) the period between the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty and (3) the period from Lisbon onwards. In so doing, we looked at the discursive evolution of three main dimensions that determine its status, namely the underlying motivation of development, the assumed ‘road to development’ and the perspective on policy coherence. The article concludes that recent policy trends represent a ‘return to form’ of EU development policy rather than a new phenomenon.

Securitization, migration-related conditionality in the European Union Official Development Assistance

In this article, it is explained the consequences of migration-related conditionality for the EU development policy which appears after a process of securitization of migration. In this way, it contributes to a better understanding of the security-migration-development nexus in the European Union (EU). For this, two key documents are critically reviewed to understand the external axis of the EU migration policy, such as the European Agenda on Migration and the Partnership Framework with third countries. In the study it is concluded that migration-related conditionality redirects development policy to objectives which are alien to it. In addition, these imposed objectives are in contradiction with some of the most important consensus of the global development agenda.

The Necessity of Planned Urban Development

Abstract The necessity of planned urban development might seem self-evident, but in reality is far from being so – particularly in former socialist countries turned into EU Member States such as Hungary or Romania. In Hungary, for instance, prior to EU accession, there was no generally accepted public opinion supporting the necessity of a planned urban development controlled by the public sector. However, the substantial resources – that in Hungary, e.g., involve impressive amounts – placed at the disposal of urban development within the framework of European Union development policy are not sufficient by themselves to answer the question as to why planned urban development is truly necessary. Based on the most recent research results on the topic and some relevant earlier Hungarian and foreign studies lesser-known in Central Europe, the present paper seeks to answer this question. It analyses the international literature as well as certain Western European, Hungarian, and Romanian cases in order to define the general objectives of urban planning and uses them as a starting-point to demonstrate the necessity of planned urban development.

Gender Equality in European Union Development Policy in Times of Crisis

Gender equality is firmly established on the European Union development policy agenda. However, a series of interrelated crises, including migration, security and climate change, are becoming more prominent in European Union development policy. This article asks whether development objectives have been subsumed under these crisis-driven European Union priorities, whether this is compatible with efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment through development cooperation and whether it will affect the ability to keep gender equality high on the European Union’s development policy agenda. The theoretical framework draws on horizontal policy coordination and nexuses. The analysis of European Union development policy documents shows how migration, security and climate change are constructed as crises, how they intersect in various nexuses and how gender intersects with each of these nexuses. This research finds that gender equality is absent from the migration–security–climate nexuses, which are increasingly driving development policy priorities. The article argues that it is quite straightforward to keep gender equality on the development policy agenda, but it is difficult to retain a focus on gender equality when multiple policy areas intersect. The research suggests that the discourse of crisis has blocked the way, and this will have an impact on the European Union’s internal and external activities.

The Politics of Double Delegation in the European Union

The European Union (EU) often channels the contributions of its member countries through other international development organizations (IDOs) to implement its development programs and activities. Why do EU member countries who delegate their foreign aid to these EU institutions allow the Commission to further delegate the use of these resources to such IDOs? We argue that governments face a trade-off between visibility and effectiveness. Pooling foreign aid resources in the EU increases the visibility of the EU as a foreign policy actor. Yet, while the increase in resources makes the EU a more powerful actor in developing countries, it oftentimes does not have the capacity to use these resources effectively. Delegating aid to IDOs helps the EU to solve this capacity problem, but it also reduces the benefits regarding visibility. Double delegation also limits the control that member states can exert over EU development policies. Consequently, double delegation is more likely when the EU’s capacity as an aid donor is low and when no strategic interests of EU members are at stake. We also show that the Commission tries to mitigate the loss of control by earmarking the delegated aid projects more tightly. Our empirical analysis is based on our own coding of project-level information in the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System, document analysis, and interviews at the EU, the Word Bank, and bilateral donors. The results generally support our theoretical expectations.

European Union Development Policy: Collective Action in Times of Global Transformation and Domestic Crisis

This special issue of Development Policy Review reflects on European Union (EU) efforts to build a more effective global development policy amid a rapidly changing international context. As 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals have made clear, global development challenges require collective action if they are to be resolved. Contributions to the special issue explore the ways in which the EU approaches collective action challenges in different development cooperation frameworks and policy settings. Themes explored include strategies for overcoming collective action problems, the impacts of these interactions on EU and member state aid policies, coherence between development and other policy fields, relations between European and other development actors, and the reception of the EU's efforts in developing countries.

China in Africa: What challenges for a reforming European Union development policy? Illustrations from country cases

During the past decade, the EU has introduced several reforms to make collective development policy more coherent and effective. At the same time, development exists alongside (and sometimes competes with) other policy fields, particularly in settings where the EU has strong economic interests. Reforms to EU external relations take place against a backdrop of rapidly intensifying economic and political relations between China and African countries, a debate often framed as increasing competition with the EU. This article argues that Chinese engagement in Africa poses challenges for the EU's development policy, but these differ considerably across African countries. We look at three country cases to show that China's increasing engagement with individual African countries does not cause EU collective action failures.