The rise of policy coherence for development: a multi-causal approach

In recent years policy coherence for development (PCD) has become a key principle in international development debates, and it is likely to become even more relevant in the discussions on the post-2015 sustainable development goals. This article addresses the rise of PCD on the Western donors’ aid agenda. While the concept already appeared in the work of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the early 1990s, it took until 2007 before PCD became one of the Organisation’s key priorities. We adopt a complexity-sensitive perspective, involving a process-tracing analysis and a multi-causal explanatory framework. We argue that the rise of PCD is not as contingent as it looks. While actors such as the EU, the DAC and OECD Secretariat were the ‘active causes’ of the rise of PCD, it is equally important to look at the underlying ‘constitutive causes’ which enabled policy coherence to thrive well

Shaping the global communications milieu : the EU's influence on internet and telecommunications governance

This article evaluates the European Union's (EU) influence in shaping the global governance for telecommunications and the Internet. Through analysing EU behaviour within an actorness framework, we demonstrate how the external opportunity structure and the EU's internal environment has impacted on its ability to exert and maximize its presence in order to meet its goals and aims in these two very different sub-sectors of global communications in terms of evolution and development. Such a comparison of EU actorness, we argue, is revealing in terms of uncovering the underlying factors and conditions that allow the EU to influence two important and dynamic communications sub-sectors

Systematizing Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions

notes: The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Norwegian Political Science Association Annual Conference, 6 January 2010, University of Agder, Kristiansand, participants of the ‘Establishing Causality in Policy Learning’ panel at the American Political Science Association (APSA) annual meeting,2–5 September 2010,Washington DC, and the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) Joint Sessions, St Gallen, 12–17 April 2011, workshop 2. Dunlop and Radaelli gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Research Council, grant on Analysis of Learning in Regulatory Governance, ALREG, http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/ceg/research/ALREG/index.php.publication-status: AcceptedThe definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com and also from DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.xThe field of policy learning is characterised by concept stretching and lack of systematic findings. To systematize them, we combine the classic Sartorian approach to classification with the more recent insights on explanatory typologies. At the outset, we classify per genus et differentiam – distinguishing between the genus and the different species within it. By drawing on the technique of explanatory typologies to introduce a basic model of policy learning, we identify four major genera in the literature. We then generate variation within each cell by using rigorous concepts drawn from adult education research. Specifically, we conceptualize learning as control over the contents and goals of knowledge. By looking at learning through the lenses of knowledge utilization, we show that the basic model can be expanded to reveal sixteen different species. These types are all conceptually possible, but are not all empirically established in the literature. Up until now the scope conditions and connections among types have not been clarified. Our reconstruction of the field sheds light on mechanisms and relations associated with alternatives operationalizations of learning and the role of actors in the process of knowledge construction and utilization. By providing a comprehensive typology, we mitigate concept stretching problems and aim to lay the foundations for the systematic comparison across and within cases of policy learning.European Research Council, grant no 230267 on Analysis of Learning in Regulatory Governance, ALREG

From ‘Unilateral’ to ‘Dialogical’: Determinants of EU–Azerbaijan Negotiations

The European Union (EU) and Azerbaijan have negotiated three different agreements for a new legal basis underpinning their relationship since 2010. Whereas the EU tries to adhere to a more unilateral approach, Azerbaijan wants cooperation to take place on a more inclusive, dialogical, basis. The essay will present a model of ‘bargaining power’ to analyse how the Azerbaijani government has tried to enforce this, and to what degree it has been successful. It finds that the bargaining power model can explain some of the changing power dynamics in EU–Azerbaijan relations, and that these might speak to the broader Eurasian region too

Giving Aid on the Recipient's Terms: The Swedish Experience in Tanzania

Abstract is not availabl

Trade and aid? The negotiated construction of European Union policy on economic partnership agreements.

Efforts by the European Commission and by leading member states, to normatively frame the debate about trade - and thus rhetorically entrap other actors by references to previous commitments - are ubiquitous; and member states do take account of the potential effects of their actions, in terms of potential praise or shaming, and adapt their behaviour to the institutional setting. However, this holds true only up to a certain limit. If sensitivity to domestic constituencies is high enough and the issue gets politicized, then member states may break ranks regardless of institutionalized normative constraints, especially if the issue-area is linked to proclaimed key self-images of the government. External pressure can also play its part. Indeed, the Commission's reluctant decision to include development sections in the final offer was arguably not only the result of internal member state activity, but also of pressure from the EU's counterpart - Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific - whose main bargaining objective was to include strong and effective development provisions in the final agreement. International Politics (2009) 46, 451-468. doi: 10.1057/ip.2009.2; published online 1 May 200