Suchergebnisse

Die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten formulieren in der Entwicklungspolitik ehrgeizige gemeinsame Prinzipien, die nationale Umsetzung hinkt aber oft hinterher. Welche Faktoren spielen dabei eine Rolle? Mit Frankreich, Deutschland und Spanien untersucht die Studie drei langjährige EU-Mitgliedsstaaten. Sie nutzt einen sozialkonstruktivistischen Normenansatz und entwirft ein Modell für das Verständnis der bislang oft unterbelichteten institutionellen Verankerung und Internalisierung internationaler Normen. In zwei Fallstudien werden Armutsorientierung und gebergemeinsame Ansätze untersucht. Auf Basis zahlreicher Interviews sowie umfassenden weiteren Quellen wird deutlich, dass sowohl länder- als auch fallspezifische Faktoren eine Rolle spielen.

This article reviews the current state of the EU's development policy reform agenda. It suggests that the extension of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) to this area of EU activity would offer significant advantages. It reviews the EU's experience with the OMC, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of this process and examines how it might relate to the current formulation and implementation of development policy.

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.

Externe Wahrnehmungen von Europas Identität und Rolle als global- und entwicklungspolitischer Akteur unterscheiden sich in vielerlei Hinsicht. Zum einen präsentiert sich Europa nach Außen durch eine Vielzahl verschiedener Akteure, wie zum Beispiel die Kommission, die Mitgliedsstaaten oder den neu geschaffenen diplomatischen Dienst. Zum anderen sind die europäischen Akteure in einer Reihe verschiedener Politikfelder mit unterschiedlichem Engagement und unterschiedlichen Kompetenzen tätig. Basierend auf ethnographischen Untersuchungen des Verhältnisses der Europäischen Union (EU) zu Kenia, der Ostafrikanischen Gemeinschaft (EAC) und der Afrikanischen Union (AU) legt dieser Beitrag dar, wie sich die Unterschiede in den Wahrnehmungen im Wesentlichen entlang zweier Differentiationen ausdrücken. Einerseits unterscheiden sich Auffassungen europäischen außenpolitischen Personals von solchen ihrer afrikanischen Kooperationspartner. Andererseits muss differenziert werden zwischen Wahrnehmungen von Europa als alternatives geopolitisches Modell regionaler Integration und solchen von Europa als geoökonomische Macht. Dieser Beitrag präsentiert und analysiert eine Reihe solch differenzierter Wahrnehmungen europäischer und afrikanischer Kooperationspartner.

The European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is a central part of the EU's engagement on migration. It has generated both high aspirations and serious concerns regarding its aims, activities, and relation¬ship to broader trends in migration and development policy. The EUTF's stated goal is to "address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration", an aim that is widely seen as unrealistic. However, key actors have other ambitions for the fund. These include demonstrating action on migration in response to political pressure, incentivising African cooperation on migration management, and using the fund's flexibility to develop innovative programming. It is arguably through such innovation that the EUTF could add most value. The EUTF is perceived by many African partners as part of a European-imposed migration agenda that prioritises EU interests over African ones. While experiences vary between countries and projects, African ownership within the EUTF is undoubtedly weaker than within traditional European cooperation instruments. The EUTF risks alienating African partners and overlooking local priorities, knowledge and capacities. The selection of EUTF projects and partners has been criticised as ad hoc and untransparent. Member states' implementing agencies play the largest role in implementation, and some clearly see the fund as a source of finance for their regular programming. This raises concerns over whether EUTF projects add value to existing programming and are the best fit for either the trust fund's goals or local context. The most controversial aspect of the EUTF is its potential to divert development aid in service of the EU's migration agenda, including in ways that contradict EU development and human rights commitments. This appears to be part of a broader trend towards the securitisation of EU development assistance. The EUTF also undermines EU development commitments by skewing aid allocations towards countries based on their migration profile, and by abandoning aid effectiveness principles such as alignment. There are several measures that could improve the EUTF and make the most of the opportunities that it offers. These include: more transparent and consultative project development; stronger engagement with local actors and needs; greater emphasis on seeking out "best fit" implementers; and drawing on existing lessons, evidence and approaches. However, if the EUTF is ultimately an indication of the future direction of EU development cooperation, this does not bode well for the EU's prioritisation of development principles, its long-term interests, or its relationship with Africa. Several processes lie ahead that will influence the future of EU-Africa relations. These must be used to examine how Europe and Africa can work together more constructively to address migration in ways that meet both their interests.

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.