Search results

While policy and academic discourses point to important shifts in EU development policy, it remains difficult to ascertain the level of these changes. The main aim of this article is to propose a research agenda on change and continuity in EU development policy. Drawing on the literatures on paradigm change and post-development, this involves four key questions for future research: (1) How can we map the EU's current paradigm? (2) How can we map changes and continuities in this regard? (3) How can we explain changes and continuities? (4) What role do policy experiments play in this regard? In addressing these four questions, the article pays particular attention to what we already know from existing literature and to what issues could guide future research. We highlight that ostensibly significant changes are often 'merely' second order changes that do not challenge underlying philosophical ideas of the Eurocentric, modernist and colonial paradigm. Specifically, we point at the importance of studying whether policy experiments 'reinvent' this paradigm or induce paradigmatic change. In the conclusions, we summarize the research agenda and reflect on the need of a better acknowledgement of the 'PlEUriverse' of alternatives to 'development' within Europe.

The article examines the peculiarities of EU normative power application in its development policy towards the countries of the Global South. Despite the controversial results of seventy years of efforts by the European Economic Community and then the European Union to promote development, the international situation and the difficulties inside the EU are making the EU intensify its development policy and look for more effective tools. The author tries to identify the reasons for the transformation of approaches in the EU development policy by taking into account the influence of both external and internal factors affecting the EU's ability to exercise its normative power. It is concluded that, firstly, the internal factors including the EU enlargements, solidarity crisis and Brexit are currently changing the EU's ability to serve as a normative power in its development policy. Secondly, the EU has not found any alternatives to development policy in solving both global and its own difficulties in normative and geopolitical aspects. Thirdly, the EU is still looking for more effective tools to both facilitate development and exercise its normative power. The practical significance of the research is to create a basis for elaborating and upgrading Russian development policy approaches since it is very limited, but it could be beneficial for Russia in the world arena.

This paper assesses the preferences of EU institutions and member states for the Union's development policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing both the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss and the exacerbating socio-economic inequalities requires a response that links the short-term recovery of the pandemic with longer-term socio-ecological transformations. Our findings show that the EU and its member states have mainly responded to that challenge through Team Europe and Team Europe Initiatives. While these have contributed to defining a joint European response to the pandemic, the strong focus on climate and green transitions and the lack of connections to the broader SDG agenda as well as social and human development have created tensions between some member states and the EU. A key challenge ahead in further defining the European response to the pandemic is finding new strategic directions and operational means for bridging these differing priorities.

This paper assesses the preferences of EU institutions and member states for the Union's development policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing both the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss and the exacerbating socio-economic inequalities requires a response that links the short-term recovery of the pandemic with longer-term socio-ecological transformations. Our findings show that the EU and its member states have mainly responded to that challenge through Team Europe and Team Europe Initiatives. While these have contributed to defining a joint European response to the pandemic, the strong focus on climate and green transitions and the lack of connections to the broader SDG agenda as well as social and human development have created tensions between some member states and the EU. A key challenge ahead in further defining the European response to the pandemic is finding new strategic directions and operational means for bridging these differing priorities.

This paper assesses the preferences of EU institutions and member states for the Union's development policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing both the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss and the exacerbating socio-economic inequalities requires a response that links the short-term recovery of the pandemic with longer-term socio-ecological transformations. Our findings show that the EU and its member states have mainly responded to that challenge through Team Europe and Team Europe Initiatives. While these have contributed to defining a joint European response to the pandemic, the strong focus on climate and green transitions and the lack of connections to the broader SDG agenda as well as social and human development have created tensions between some member states and the EU. A key challenge ahead in further defining the European response to the pandemic is finding new strategic directions and operational means for bridging these differing priorities.

Global power shifts are altering the development landscape, necessitating a parallel shift from a development aid focus to a global development policy that addresses priorities linked to global public goods. The European Union has the funds, expertise and experience to drive this initiative, but first its member countries need to agree on concrete goals and implement a common strategy for realizing them. Public diplomacy regarding EU development policy needs improvement. The EU and its members must convey to the public that global development is a long-haul process that does not immediately produce measurable results. The EU must also convey that the short-term costs will be outweighed by the longer-term benefits of equitable GPG provision.

The main purpose of the research is to identify the achievements and failures of the European Communi-ties/European Union development policies in terms of countering unwanted migration from third countries to Europe. European development policy started in the 1950–1960s due to the colonial past of many European states which felt responsibility for their ex-colonies. Common development policy was based at first on the values, but later transformed to serve the European geopolitical interests. Therefore, the European development policy changed from providing unilateral preferences and gratuitous help to making any aid conditional on the partner's ability to meet the EU requirements. Thus, the responsibility for development was gradually moved from Europe to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. In the 2000s, the need to prevent massive immigration making it more manageable became one of the regular EU interests. Therefore, the European Union launched the external dimension of its migration policy that was aimed at making development work for migration prevention. This trend contributed to the EU development policy reorientation from the poorest states to the nearest ones. Although the EU development policy was transformed, it failed to meet most of its aims. The main failures were the expectation to limit immigration in the short-term and overestimation of the Union's normative power. Because of both Brussels' inability to ensure development globally and the widening gap in the welfare between the ACP states and Europe, the immigration to the EU is unlikely to drop until 2060s.

Gender considerations and civil society are both major issues in the current debate about the implementation of EU development policy. This volume provides a new perspective and focus on the increasingly important issues of gender equality, democracy and participation to explain how they impact on policy

European Union (EU) funding for United Nations (UN) organisations has expanded significantly over the last two decades. The EU's partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is an important example of EU-UN cooperation, and UNDP was the fourth-largest UN recipient of European Commission funds in 2018. Against the backdrop of UN and EU reforms that aim to strengthen multilateralism and promote more integrated development cooperation approaches, this paper outlines priority areas in EU-UNDP cooperation and modes of cooperation. The term "added value" provides an entry point for identifying the rationales for EU funding to UNDP. In EU budgetary discussions, added value is a concept used to inform decisions such as whether to take action at the EU or member state levels or which means of implementation to select. These choices extend to the development cooperation arena, where the term relates to the division of labour agenda and features in assessments of effectiveness. The paper explores three perspectives to consider the added value of funding choices within the EU-UNDP partnership relating to the division of labour between EU institutions and member states, the characteristics of UNDP as an implementation channel and the qualities of the EU as a funder. On the first dimension, the large scale of EU funding for UNDP sets it apart from most member states, though EU funding priorities display elements of specialisation as well as similar emphases to member states. On the second dimension, UNDP's large scope of work, its implementation capacities and accountability standards are attractive to the EU, but additional criteria – including organisational cost effectiveness – can alter the perception of added value. Finally, the scale of EU funding and the possibility to engage in difficult country contexts are key elements of the added value of the EU as a funder. However, the EU's non-core funding emphasis presents a challenge for the UN resource mobilisation agenda calling for greater flexibility in organisational funding. Attention to these multiple dimensions of added value can inform future EU choices on how to orient engagement with UNDP to reinforce strengths of the organisation and enable adaptations envisaged in UN reform processes.

"Gender considerations and civil society are both major issues in the current debate about the implementation of EU development policy. This volume provides a new perspective and focus on the increasingly important issues of gender equality, democracy and participation to explain how they impact on policy. This book will appeal to those interested in the European Union, in EU external relations, gender issues, civil society, and development."--Provided by publisher.