Regional and sub-regional effects on development policies: The Benelux and the Nordic countries compared

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri Siitonen
Keyword(s):  
Nordic Countries ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Bilateral Aid ◽  
Norm Diffusion ◽  
Politiques Publiques ◽  
Regional Effects ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Politica Publica ◽  
Donor Coordination ◽  
The Eu

This is a comparative study of development policy behavior, testing the Europeanization hypothesis and the idea of sub-regional identification. It examines development policies of three Benelux countries and four Nordic countries. The comparison was partly quantitative, drawing from OECD data, and partly qualitative, based on policy analysis of similarities and differences in development policies of the countries under examination. The examination provides some evidence in support of the Europeanization hypothesis as far as the EU goals towards growth in member states’ aid volume and commitment to policy coherence for development were concerned. The alternative explanation was found to be stronger in helping understand performance in multilateral aid and allocation of bilateral aid. Common to the countries under examination is that they approximate a corporatist type of political economy, which helps in understanding identification and norm diffusion within sub-regional schemes. Neither explanation proposed here succeeded in explaining commitment to donor coordination.Spanish abstract: Este estudio comparativo del comportamiento de la política pública de desarrollo prueba la hipótesis de Europeización y la idea de identifi cación subregional. Las políticas públicas de desarrollo de tres países de Benelux y cuatro países Nórdicos fueron examinadas. La comparación fue cuantitativa y cualitativa, basada en análisis de similitud de política pública y diferencias en las políticas de desarrollo. El examen provee evidencia que apoya la hipótesis de Europeización tan lejos como las metas de crecimiento de la UE en volumen de ayuda y compromiso de coherencia de política de desarrollo de los estados miembros eran considerados. Se encontró sólida en ayudar entender el desempeño de la cooperación multilateral y la asignación de cooperación bilateral. Los países bajo estudio aproximan un tipo corporativista de economía política, que ayuda entender la identifi cación y difusión de normas dentro de esquemas subregionales. Ninguna explicación propuestas explica el compromiso con la coordinación del donante.French abstract: Cett e étude comparative évalue l’hypothèse de l’européanisation et l’idée de l’identification sous-régionale. Elle examine les politiques de développement des pays membres de deux schémas européens sous-régionaux : les trois pays du Benelux et les quatre pays nordiques. La comparaison est en partie quantitative à partir des données de l’OCDE et en partie qualitative, car elle se fonde sur une analyse de politiques publiques des similarités et des différences dans les politiques de développement des pays étudiés. L’analyse apporte des éléments en faveur de l’hypothèse de l’européanisation dans la mesure où les objectifs de l’EU en matière d’augmentation du volume de l’aide et de l’engagement en faveur de la cohérence des politiques publiques pour le développement (CPD) sont concernés. Cependant, l’explication alternative est avérée car elle permet de comprendre la performance de l’aide multilatérale et l’allocation de l’aide bilatérale. Un point commun entre les pays étudiés est qu’ils s’approchent d’un modèle corporatiste d’économie politique qui aide à comprendre l’identification et la diffusion normative à l’intérieur de cadres sous-régionaux. Cependant, aucune des explications proposées ne réussit à expliquer l’engagement en matière de coordination des donateurs.

Inequality and poverty: The ill-fitting pieces in the EU’s development partnerships

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riina Pilke ◽  
Marikki Stocchetti
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Development Cooperation ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Politique Publique ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Coherence ◽  
Poverty And Inequality ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Politica Publica ◽  
The Eu

[Full article is in English]English: This article reviews the main policy guidelines set by the European Union (EU) for eradicating poverty and inequality in the context of its development cooperation partnerships. Drawing on the structure of the EU’s treaty, the EU’s offi cial development policies since 2005, and the related European Commission documents over the past five years, it examines the conceptions of poverty and inequality and how the EU translates them into operational diff erentiation. The scope of the diff erentiated cooperation encompasses diff erent types of developing countries, including a variety of both low-income countries (LICs) and middleincome countries (MICs). The article argues that diff erentiation poses a challenge to the EU’s internal development policy coherence. While the EU has adopted a multifaceted understanding of poverty, its conception of inequality is very narrow. In addition, the authors contend that the EU lacks clear criteria for diff erentiation in diverse country contexts in both regards.Spanish: El propósito de este trabajo es revisar los principales lineamientos de política pública establecidos por la Unión Europea (UE) para la erradicación de la pobreza y la desigualdad en el contexto de sus asociaciones de cooperación al desarrollo. Con base en la estructura de los tratados de la UE, las políticas oficiales de desarrollo de la UE desde 2005, y los documentos relacionados de la Comisión Europea en los últimos cinco años, este artículo examina las concepciones de pobreza y desigualdad así como la traducción sistemática que hace la UE de dichos conceptos en una diferenciación funcional en sus asociaciones de cooperación al 22 Regions & Cohesion • Spring 2016 desarrollo. El alcance de la cooperación diferenciada abarca diferentes tipos de países en desarrollo, incluyendo una variedad de países con bajos y medios ingresos (LIC y MIC por sus siglas en inglés). El artículo sostiene que la diferenciación plantea un desafío a la coherencia de la política pública de desarrollo al interior de la UE. Mientras que la UE ha adoptado una comprensión multifacética de la pobreza, su concepción de la desigualdad es muy estrecha. Además, las autoras argumentan que la UE carece de criterios claros para una diferenciación que tome en cuenta las dimensiones tanto de pobreza como de desigualdad en diversos contextos de países.French: L’objectif de ce texte consiste à passer en revue les principales lignes de politique publique de l’Union Européenne (UE) en matière de lutte contre la pauvreté et des inégalités dans le cadre de son partenariat de coopération pour le développement. A partir d’une révision des traités de l’UE, des politiques officielles de développement depuis 2005 et de documents de la Commission Européenne datant des cinq dernières années, l’article évoque les conceptions de la pauvreté et des inégalités et comment l’UE les traduit par une différenciacion opérative en matière de coopération pour le développement. La portée de la coopération differenciée inclut différents types de pays en développement, y compris divers pays à revenus bas et intermédiaires. Cet article défend l’idée que la différentiation présente un défi pour la cohérence de la politique de développement au sein de l’UE. Alors que celle-ci a adopté un point de vue multifacétique de la pauvreté, sa conception des inégalités est extrêmement limitée. Ainsi, les auteures affirment que l’UE manque de critères clairs pour établir une différenciation qui prenne en compte à la fois les dimensions de la pauvreté et les inégalités dans les différents contextes nationaux.

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.

scholarly journals Nothern European Lessons for Eurasian Integration

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-91
Author(s):  
L. S. Voronkov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Nordic Countries ◽  
The Other ◽  
Northern Europe ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Economic Union ◽  
The Eu

The paper is dedicated to the differences between the classical instruments for regulating interstate political and trade-economic relations from those used in the development of regional integration processes. Traditionally, the Eurasian Economic Union is compared with the European Union, considering the EU as a close example to follow in the development of integration processes. At the same time, there exist the other models of integration. The author proposes to pay attention to the other models of integration and based on the analysis of documents, reveals the experience of Northern Europe, which demonstrates effective cooperation without infringing on the sovereignty of the participants. The author examines the features of the integration experience of the Nordic countries in relation to the possibility of using its elements in the modern integration practice of the Eurasian Economic Union.

scholarly journals URBANIZATION AND DYNAMICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH (THE CASE OF NUTS 2 REGIONS OF EUROPEAN UNION)

2019 ◽  
pp. 15-29
Author(s):  
Michaela Staníčková ◽  
Lukáš Melecký
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
European Union ◽  
Regional Development ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Economic Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Endogenous Factors ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Regional Development Policies ◽  
The Eu

Regional development policies based on local potential triggers a shift in the economic structure of territories. Exogenous and endogenous factors determine potential of regional development and it is necessary to use different indicators and methods to its evaluation. For the paper purpose, it is required to define metropolitan and peripheral functions as well as urban areas in the form of geographic models, depicting their spatial distribution in the European Union (EU). Nowadays, regions are increasingly becoming the drivers of the economy. All regions possess development opportunities – however, use these options enough, and hence the competitiveness of regions must be efficient enough. The paper focuses on dividing the EU NUTS 2 regions based on geographic models of the European economy into efficient and inefficient ones and identifying an optimal benchmark for inefficient regions as a strategy for enhancing their economic structure to measure regional efforts and progress.

scholarly journals Experiencing Europeanization in the Black Sea and South Caucasus

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Reisner
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Governance Reform ◽  
European Studies ◽  
The South ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Norm Diffusion ◽  
The Eu

The book series European Studies in the Caucasus offers innovative perspectives on regional studies of the Caucasus. By embracing the South Caucasus as well as Turkey and Russia, it moves away from a traditional viewpoint of European Studies that considers the countries of the region as objects of Europeanization. This second volume demonstrates this by looking into forms of inter-regionalism in the Black Sea–South Caucasus area in fields of economic cooperation, Europeanization of energy and environmental policies, discussing how the region is addressed in the elaboration of a new German Eastern Policy. In the section on norm diffusion, the contributors assess the normative power strategy of the EU and its paradoxes in the region, its impact on civil society development in Armenia, and democracy promotion in Georgia. In the section on legal approximation, issues of a global climate change regime and competition law in Georgia as well as penitentiary governance reform in the South Caucasus according to EU standards and policies are analyzed. All contributions also review regional or local contestations for the topics discussed here.

scholarly journals The Nordic difference: Job quality in Europe 1995–2010

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomi Oinas ◽  
Timo Anttila ◽  
Armi Mustosmäki ◽  
Juoko Nätti
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Working Conditions ◽  
Nordic Countries ◽  
Job Quality ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Working ◽  
European Working Conditions Survey ◽  
Advantageous Position ◽  
Nordic Welfare State ◽  
The Eu

Previous empirical research has pointed out that Nordic countries are distinguished from the rest of Europe in terms of job quality. On the other hand, it has been debated whether, in the longer run, the Nordic welfare state is able to insulate workers from globalization effects. This article investigates whether Nordic countries have retained their advantageous position concerning job quality compared with other EU countries. Empirical analyses are based on the European Working Conditions Survey collected in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. We use data on employees in the 15 member states of the EU prior to enlargement in 2004 (n = 61,457). The results partly confirm previous findings of high job quality in the Nordic countries. However, there are clear differences between Nordic countries. To be precise, Denmark stands out from the rest of Europe and other Nordic countries with its higher level of job quality.

scholarly journals Policy for the Support of Creative Economy

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12
Author(s):  
Jozef Tvrdoň ◽  
Eva Belvončíková
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
Creative Economy ◽  
Policy Tools ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Policy Level ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
The Eu

Creative economy has become an important part of the development policies for more than a decade. Traditional approaches and tools of regional policy have not sufficiently operated in the creative economy framework. The paper presents the first insight of authors an this topic. The first part is focused on creative economy as a policy object in theory and in the EU policy level. It is followed by examples from two countries oriented on SMEs policy tools and on institutional framework. On a basis of the case studies the paper also looks at policy tools and their status in Slovakia. The final part contains proposals for policy tools in two areas - tools oriented on small and medium sized enterprises support and tools for creation of a specific creative economy development conditions (regulatory framework, supporting institutions and intellectual property rights area).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document