The European Union and Policy Coherence for Development: Reforms, Results, Resistance

Abstract

This article discusses the trajectory of policy coherence for development (PCD) in the European Union (EU). In particular, it argues that the strong focus on institutional mechanisms, conceived as a way of overcoming different types of resistance, has had the effect that results achieved have by no means been commensurate with the expectations raised by the various reforms launched over the years. EU Member States have paid lip-service to the importance of PCD without translating commitments into more coherent (national and supranational) policies. Moroever, through an analysis of the Impact Assessment (IA) -the principal mechanism to promote PCD at EU level -prepared for the reform of the EU's agricultural and fisheries policies in 2011-2013 it shows how bureaucratic arrangements have substantially failed to clarify the real impact of EU policies on (different types of) developing countries. The conclusion is that successful promotion of PCD is more than just having the right arguments and ensuring sufficient technical support, but is first and foremost a political undertaking.

Governing the Interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to Attain Policy Integration

“…The term was first used by the Development Assistance Committee in 1991 and was institutionalized through the publication of strategic documents by the European Commission and the OECD in the field of development policy throughout the 1990s and 2000s. [31,32] Conceptually, policy coherence is closely related to "policy integration" (e.g., refs. [13] and [33][34][35][36][37]).…”

Governing Sustainable Development Through ‘Policy Coherence’? The Production and Circulation of Knowledge in the Eu and the Oecd

“…Between 2007 and 2015 analyses have mainly dealt with evaluating bureaucratic arrangements, technical and managerial processes within the EU. Therefore, authors have criticized that the EU and its member states are only paying lips-service to enhancing PCD without making real efforts for systematically analyzing the effects of EU policies in developing countries (Picciotto 2005;Carbone 2008a,b;Keijzer and Oppewal 2012;Carbone and Keijzer 2016). While coordination is considered to be an important element of PCD, policy coherence is not automatically the result of successful coordination but requires political decisions across all policies and member states despite increasing heterogeneity that consider the development of poor countries (cf.…”

“…While coordination is considered to be an important element of PCD, policy coherence is not automatically the result of successful coordination but requires political decisions across all policies and member states despite increasing heterogeneity that consider the development of poor countries (cf. May, Sapotichne, and Workman 2006;Barry, King, and Matthews 2010;Carbone and Keijzer 2016). As such, the design of European assessment tools demonstrates the objective to enhance EU capacities of developing policy-making standards and increasing technical knowledge on coordination instruments and international cooperation programs justified by efficiency and effectiveness.…”

“…Concord 2009Concord , 2011Concord , 2013Concord , 2015aConcord , 2015b can be considered as particularly important for framing PCD but other actors representing notably business interests, agricultural, national security or anti-migration interests are also determining the policy environment in which the EU has developed and promoted the PCD concept. It has been argued that policy coherence of external action may finally reproduce and reinforce traditional habits; thereby subordinating development policy to other polices (Carbone 2013;Keukeleire and Raube 2013;Carbone and Keijzer 2016). Those rivalries emphasize that policy coherence for sustainable development is a very political issue in the EU.…”

“…Both have put efforts into broadening and enhancing the concept, suggesting institutional requirements for improving PCD (OECD 2009a). The interests beyond those approaches remain, however, controversially discussed (Carbone 2013a,b;Thede 2013;Young and Peterson 2013;Carbone and Keijzer 2016). On the one hand, both the OECD and the EU have an interest in lifting developing partner countries out of poverty and conflict to establish strong and stable partnerships, and create concepts, mechanisms and processes that promote that goal (i.e.…”