Mission Impossible: the European Union and Policy Coherence for Development

2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurizio Carbone
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Policy Coherence For Development

Normative policy coherence for development and policy networks

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Häbel
Keyword(s):  
Policy Networks ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Trade Networks ◽  
Politiques Publiques ◽  
Political Networks ◽  
Transformative Development ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Policy Coherence For Development

English abstract: The European Union (EU) is often understood as a normative power. However, based on a case study of European policy networks in Vietnam, this article shows that despite the EU’s commitment to norms and transformative development, norms are not a priority in the implementation of development policies. Rather, norm promotion is delegated to political and diplomatic representatives, whereas development and trade representatives are responsible for technical work. Consequently, policy networks created around these four sectors tend to operate separately from each other, undermining the spillover of norms from diplomatic and political networks to development and trade networks. As a result, this article shows that the structural–institutional separation of sectoral policy networks is one of the EU’s systemic characteristics that restrict normative policy coherence for development.Spanish abstract: La Unión Europea (UE) es considerada un poder normativo, comprometida con las normas y el desarrollo transformativo. En cambio, usando un caso de estudio de redes europeas políticas en Vietnam, este artículo demuestra que las normas no son prioridad en la implementación de políticas de desarrollo. Al contrario, la promoción de normas se delega a representantes políticos y diplomáticos, mientras que los representantes del desarrollo y comercio se hacen cargo del trabajo técnico. Consecuentemente las redes políticas de estos cuatro sectores tienden a aislarse, dificultando la transferencia de las normas de redes políticas y diplomáticas a redes de desarrollo y comercio. El resultado demuestra que la separación estructuro–institucional de las redes políticas sectoriales es una de las características sistémicas de la UE que restringen la coherencia normativa de políticas para el desarrollo.French abstract: L’Union européenne est souvent considérée comme une puissance normative. Cependant, sur la base d’une étude de cas de réseaux de politiques publiques au Vietnam, cet article montre que, malgré son engagement normatif et de développement réformateur, les normes ne sont pas une priorité dans la mise en oeuvre des politiques de développement. Au contraire, leur promotion est déléguée aux représentants politiques et diplomatiques, tandis que les représentants du développement et du commerce sont responsables des travaux techniques. Par conséquent, les réseaux politiques créés autour de ces quatre secteurs ont tendance à fonctionner séparément les uns des autres, ce qui compromet le transfert des normes des réseaux diplomatiques et politiques aux réseaux de développement et du commerce. Ainsi, cet article montre que la séparation structuro-institutionnelle des réseaux sectoriels de politiques publiques est l’une des caractéristiques systémiques de l’UE qui restreint leur cohérence normative en matière de développement.

Adaptation and Integration through Policy Re-categorization

2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trygve Ugland
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Frequent Observation ◽  
The Eu

This comparative study analyses how the state alcohol monopoly systems in Finland, Norway and Sweden were affected by interaction with the European Union (EU). Pressures from the EU, as well as the contrasting domestic responses in this process, are viewed in relation to how these institutions were integrated in terms of consistency, interdependence and structural connectedness. The article goes beyond the frequent observation that external scrutiny and pressures challenge national policy coherence to show that domestic public policies also may emerge more coherent and integrated. It is suggested that the relationship between the way public policies are integrated, categorized and re-categorized provides important insights towards our understanding of the dynamics of public policy.

scholarly journals Transatlantic convergence of preferential trade agreements environmental clauses

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Frédéric Morin ◽  
Myriam Rochette
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Preferential Trade Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Preferential Trade ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Cooperative Approach

AbstractThe United States and the European Union include several environmental clauses in their respective preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Building on an exhaustive and fine-grained dataset of PTAs’ environmental clauses, this article makes two contributions. First, it shows that the United States and the European Union have initially favored different approaches to environmental protection in their PTAs. The United States’ concerns over regulatory sovereignty and level playing field have led to a legalistic and adversarial approach, while the European Union's concerns for policy coherence have led to a more procedural and cooperative approach. Second, this article provides evidence that European and American trade negotiators have gradually converged on a shared set of environmental norms. Although the United States and the European Union initially pursued different objectives, they learned from each other and drew similar lessons. As a result, recent American agreements have become more European-like, and European agreements have become more Americanized. This article concludes that U.S. and E.U. approaches, far from being incompatible, can usefully be combined and reinforce each other.

Climate Change Policy in the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Rayner ◽  
Andrew Jordan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Climate Change Policy ◽  
Ecological Modernization ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Environmentally Conscious ◽  
National Differences ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) has long claimed, with some justification, to be a leader in international climate policy. Its policy activities in this area, dating from the early 1990s, have had enormous influence within and beyond Europe. The period since ca. 2000 in particular has witnessed the repeated emergence of policies and targets that are increasingly distinct from national ones and sometimes globally innovative. They encompass a wide array of instruments (e.g., market-based, informational, voluntary, as well as regulatory). Policy development has been motivated by a mixture of concerns: to avoid national differences in policy causing distortions of the EU’s internal market; to enhance the domestic legitimacy of the wider project of European integration; to improve energy security; and to increase economic competitiveness through “ecological modernization.” Climate policy has also offered a means to enhance the standing of the EU as a global actor. The EU has, in general, been influential in international negotiations, for example, in its promotion of the 2°C warming limit and advocacy of emission reduction “targets and timetables.” In turn, its own policy has been shaped by developments at global level, as with the surprisingly enthusiastic adoption of the “flexible mechanism” of emissions trading. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that acute challenges to policy coherence and effectiveness—applying to emerging policy on adaptation, as well as mitigation—lie ahead in a Europe that is more polarized between its more environmentally conscious Member States and those in central and eastern Europe who have extracted significant concessions to protect their fossil fuel–intensive sectors. Although the Paris Agreement of 2015 offers an important opportunity to “ratchet up” the ambition of EU policy, it is proving to be a difficult one to seize.

Iran and European Union Politics

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Harnisch
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Proactive Behavior ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Member States ◽  
Pahlavi Dynasty ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union (EU) have not yet established formal diplomatic relations, but since 1979 the Union and its member states have had various strong if often conflictual interactions. The relationship has been marked by distinct phases that reflect the emerging character of the partners, a theocratic republic on the one hand and a Union of interdependent democratic states on the other. While mutual economic interests have formed the basis for substantial interactions, relations with member states and the EU itself have been colored by a long and sometimes hurtful history of European states’ role in Iranian politics, including the Russian and British imperial influence over Persia in the late 19th and early 20th century, the British (and American) involvement in the coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953, and the French hosting of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an avowed critic of the Pahlavi dynasty, prior to the anti-authoritarian revolution in 1979. Over time, the relationship has substantially shaped the character and direction of the politics of the EU’s common foreign and security policy, resulting in more policy coherence between member states and the EU, more policy autonomy, particularly vis-á-vis the United States, and more proactive behavior, such as during the nuclear negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (in 2015). By engaging with a problematic member of the nonproliferation treaty, the EU not only specified and thus strengthened the treaty, but it also grew into an international nonproliferation actor to reckon with.

Social Sustainability, Labour and Trade: Forging Connections

2020 ◽  
pp. 159-186
Author(s):  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Sustainability ◽  
International Labour Organization ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

This chapter investigates the connections that may be forged between sustainability, labour standards and trade. It offers a history of ‘social sustainability’ considering the opportunities presented by the SDGs. The approaches taken by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the European Union (EU) are compared and contrasted, considering recent developments, such as the ILO centenary reports and instruments, alongside EU commitments to enforcement of selected ILO standards. The chapter concludes by considering how the trade and policy coherence objectives set out in SDG 17 can be achieved and how the common and divergent approaches of the ILO and EU may yet evolve. It is suggested that SDG 16 could guide the processes for dialogue that are necessary to forge connections and solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document