Josep Borrell's infamous 13 October 2022 speech, where he described the European Union (EU) in terms of a 'garden' versus the 'jungle' outside, has received an unprecedented amount of scrutiny. Yet the metaphor used by the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commission Vice-President in charge of 'a stronger Europe in the world' was not new, nor was its underlying logic a surprise. Various analysts have pointed out the colonial tropes in European policymakers' discourses over the past decades. In an influential essay that came out in 2000, Sir Robert Cooper, who would later also become an advisor to the Council of the EU, the European External Action Service, and the European Commission, pitched the 'postmodern' EU where the rule of law is reigning versus 'premodern' states where the 'law of the jungle' prevails. 1 This illustrates how mainstream EU political discourse has been, and remains, highly colonial in the way in which relations between the EU and its presumed 'others' in world politics are conceived.More notable is the intensity of the debate and condemnation that Borrell's speech has generated within policy and scholarly circles. This reflects a growing realization that the EU should be more modest about its so-called civilizational achievements and acknowledge the long and dark shadow of its colonial past. Against the background of clear challenges to (western) European dominance in the world system, critical observers are ardently questioning Europe's alleged moral and sociopolitical superiority. Issues of racism within Europe have been increasingly discussed in the wake of 'Black Lives Matter' protests. Recent research has revealed
After years of discussions, the European Union’s (EU’s) new development finance architecture finally came into being under the umbrella of the ‘Status Quo Plus’. This article aims to, firstly, bring much-needed clarification in the nebulous landscape of EU development finance; and secondly, gain a more profound understanding of recent changes by examining to what extent they witness change or continuity. Based on a large variety of empirical data and secondary literature, we find that EU development finance has witnessed significant institutional changes while ideological trends are continued. Institutionally, we elaborate on the simplification of instruments, a shift in their accessibility – in favour of national development agencies and private actors whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) loses its monopoly on commercial guarantees – and a reshuffling of power play in favour of the European Commission and (larger) EU Member States. In terms of policy content and underlying ideology, however, we observe a deepening of the trend towards financialization within EU (development finance) institutions which ties in with the geopoliticization of aid. We conclude that the ‘Plus’ represents institutional change that nevertheless primarily served (intentionally or not) to support a continuing ideological commitment to selling development finance to the market. The conclusions summarize the main findings and formulate suggestions for further research. European Union (EU), development, financialization, geopoliticization, private finance, European Investment Bank (EIB), blending, public development banks
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.