This article enters in dialogue with the findings of the 'Europeanization East' literature that the Central and Eastern European countries adjusted to the European Union (EU) policies due to the overwhelming effect of the EU pre-accession conditionality. It is examined here whether this conclusion also applies to the foreign-aid policy adoption in two candidate states: Slovenia and Latvia. Also, the post-accession performance is studied to draw conclusions about what factors can account for the continuation of the policy evolution from 2004 to 2010. It is argued here that EU conditionality was present also in the foreign-aid policy area, but it was vague and not the only factor that mattered. Moreover, it is claimed here that identification and social influence can explain why the countries adopted foreign-aid policy in the pre-accession period and why they continued the policy even after accession.
European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) have used naming and shaming extensively in their advocacy to push the EU and member state governments to implement international norms on foreign aid. The paper analyses the contents of NGDO advocacy publications, with the goal of gaining insight into how and why these organisations engage in naming and shaming. The exercise reveals that NGDOs are highly selective in the norms they promote through naming and shaming: they shame governments heavily for not implementing norms on aid quantity, but are less vocal on norms related to aid effectiveness. The paper shows that NGDOs strategically select norms in their naming shaming activities which have higher resonance with the public and are less costly to monitor, criteria which aid quantity norms fulfil. There is also some evidence that NGDOs promote increasing the quantity of aid because it would enhance their own access to donor funding.
Over the last two decades, family law has undergone changes in Western Europe, widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In addition, some East European countries offer a legal recognition of civil unions of same-sex couples, while others do not offer any legal recognition at all. This diversity in family law has been recently challenged by developments at the European level. It is argued here that this constitutes an adaptational pressure on those European Union (EU) member states that do not offer any or offer only formal recognition of same-sex couples. We examine two cases when member states faced such an adaptational pressure, namely Estonia and Latvia, focusing on the interplay of two types of factors. First is that of formal institutions which, due to their constitutional role or their expertise in the EU law, may act as facilitators of legal changes. On the other hand, there are also political actors which have tried to constrain such an adaptation. We examine here especially the role of two political parties which have made a considerable effort to oppose the change in the two countries. It is argued here that the ideological orientation of these parties explains, at least partly, their opposition to the ongoing Europeanization of family law. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main findings and their implications.
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.