Advertisement

The PCD Unit of the OECD and Circulation of Knowledge on Policy Coherence for Development

  • Ulrike ZeigermannEmail author
Chapter
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter analyses how the identification of Policy Coherence for Development as a political problem has subsequently not only influenced intra-organizational actor-constellations in the secretariat of the OECD but also how organizational structures in the OECD have influenced the orientations and capacities of actors dealing with PCD. Between 2005 and 2015, Policy Coherence for Development was not only integrated into the work of the Development Assistance Committee, but it also became one of the two central pillars of the OECD with the 2012 Development Strategy. The analysis demonstrates that the PCD Unit of the OECD has become an increasingly influential and autonomous policy entrepreneur due to its strategic coalition-building and agenda-setting activities, including in the context of the OECD/PCD Focal Points.

Keywords

Intra-organizational transfer Framing Autonomisation Policy Coherence for Development Policy entrepreneurs 

References

  1. Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barder, O. (2013, September 26). Policy coherence is a hobgoblin. Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  3. Barral, V. (2012). Sustainable development in international law: Nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. European Journal of International Law, 23(2), 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2017). A matter of will and action: The bureaucratic autonomy of international public administrations. In Public sector organizations: International bureaucracy (pp. 13–41). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Carayannis, E. G., Pirzadeh, A., & Popescu, D. (2011). Institutional learning and knowledge transfer across epistemic communities: New tools of global governance (2012th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. CGDEV. (2014). Commitment to Development Index (CDI). Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  7. Dakowska, D. (2009). Networks of foundations as norm entrepreneurs: Between politics and policies in EU decision-making. Journal of Public Policy, 29(2), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., …, Kusumadewi, S. D. (2019). Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Global Environmental Change, 54, 64–77.Google Scholar
  9. Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Epistemic communities. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 205–217). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Eckhard, S., & Ege, J. (2016). International bureaucracies and their influence on policy-making: A review of empirical evidence. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 960–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2005). Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament and the European economic and social committee. Policy Coherence for Development Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium. Development Goals, COM (2005) 134 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Jakobi, A. P., & Martens, K. (2007). Diffusion durch internationale Organisationen: Die Bildungspolitik der OECD. In K. Holzinger, H. Jörgens, & C. Knill (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 247–270). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  13. Keijzer, N., & Oppewal, J. (2012). Learn to walk before you run? A review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation (ECDPM Working Paper No. 132).Google Scholar
  14. Langford, M., Sumner, A., & Yamin, A. E. (2013). The millennium development goals and human rights: Past, present and future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. LeGrand, T. (2019). Sovereignty renewed: Transgovernmental policy networks and the global-local dilemma. In D. Stone & K. Moloney (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of global policy and transnational administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mackie, J., Ronceray, M., & Spierings, E. (2017). Policy coherence and the 2030 Agenda: Building on the PCD experience (ECDPM Discussion Paper No. 210).Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. (2013). Food security in developing countries can be enhanced through an interplay of policies: Food security pilot as a part of the implementation of Finland’s Development Policy Programme. Executive Summary. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  18. Nay, O. (2014). International organisations and the production of hegemonic knowledge: How the World Bank and the OECD helped invent the fragile state concept. Third World Quarterly, 35(2), 210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (Ed.). (2005). Agriculture and development the case for policy coherence. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. OECD. (2007a). Enhancing the delivery of justice and security: Governance, peace and security. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. OECD (Ed.). (2007b). Policy coherence for development 2007 migration and developing countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. OECD (Ed.). (2008). Agriculture: Improving policy coherence for development. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. OECD. (2009). Development co-operation report 2009 (pp. 35–52). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2011). Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 25–26 May. Framework for an OECD strategy on development. 2011C/MIN(2011)8. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://one.oecd.org/document/C/MIN(2011)8/en/pdf.
  25. OECD. (2012a). Measuring regulatory performance. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (Ed.). (2012b). OECD strategy on development. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2012c). Recommendation of the council on regulatory policy and governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2013a). Better policies for development: In focus: Policy coherence for development and global food security. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2013b). Development co-operation report 2013: Ending poverty. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. (2013c). Multi-dimensional review of Myanmar (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. (2013d). Policy coherence for inclusive and sustainable development: OECD and post-2015 reflections (Element Paper 8). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2013e). Policy instruments to support green growth in agriculture. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. OECD. (2014a). 2014 Report on the implementation of the OECD strategy on development (No. C-MIN(2014)14-ENG). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. OECD (Ed.). (2014b). Better policies for development 2014: Policy coherence and illicit financial flows. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (2014c). Development co-operation report 2014: Mobilising resources for sustainable development. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2015a). Better policies for development 2015 policy coherence and green growth: Policy coherence and green growth. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2015b). Building policy coherence workshop—Tools and tensions 2.0. 30–31 March 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved June 21, 2016.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (2015c). Development co-operation report 2015: Making partnerships effective coalitions for action. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2015d). Multi-dimensional review of Myanmar (Vol. 2). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2015e). Multi-dimensional review of Peru. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2016a). Multi-dimensional review of Côte d’Ivoire (Vol. 3). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. OECD. (2016b). Multi-dimensional review of Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2016c). OECD multi-dimensional country reviews—OECD. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved August 21, 2016.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2016d). The framework for policy coherence for sustainable development (General Secretariat No. SG/PCD(2016)1). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2016e). The framework for policy coherence for sustainable development thematic module—Food security (General Secretariat No. SG/PCD(2016)2). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2016f). The framework for policy coherence for sustainable development thematic module—Green growth (General Secretariat No. SG/PCD(2016)4). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2016g). The framework for policy coherence for sustainable development thematic module—Illicit financial flows (General Secretariat No. SG/PCD(2016)3). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. OECD. (2017). Policy coherence for sustainable development 2017 eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity: Eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. OECD PCD Unit. (2012). Policy framework for policy coherence for development (Working Paper No. 1). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  50. OECD PCD Unit. (2014). Policy coherence for development and the sustainable development goals (Concept Note 17–18 Dec 2014). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Oman, C. P., & Arndt, C. (2010). Measuring governance (OECD Development Centre Policy Briefs). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–2211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schmelzer, M. (2016). The hegemony of growth: The OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schraad-Tischler, D., Azahaf, N., & Paulini, P. (2014). Sustainable governance indicators: SGI 2014 codebook (B. Stiftung, Ed.). Bertelsmann Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. Siitonen, L. (2015). Theorising politics behind policy coherence for development (PCD). The European Journal of Development Research, 28(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snyder, F. (1994). Soft law and institutional practice in the European community. In S. Martin (Ed.), The construction of Europe: Essays in honour of Emile Noël (pp. 197–225). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  59. Srivastava, J. (2011). ‘Norm’ of sustainable development predicament and the problematique. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 67(2), 93–110.Google Scholar
  60. Stone, D., de Oliveira, O. P., & Pal, L. A. (2020). Transnational policy transfer: The circulation of ideas, power and development models. Policy and Society, 39(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  61. Thede, N. (2013). Policy coherence for development and securitisation: Competing paradigms or stabilising North–South hierarchies? Third World Quarterly, 34 (5), 784–799.Google Scholar
  62. Tulmets, E. (2015). Exporting “Soft Norms” through the European Union’s External Policy. Politique Européenne, 46(4), 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UN. (2016a). PCSD Partnership—A multi-stakeholder partnership for enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development—#SDGAction12066.Google Scholar
  64. UN. (2016b). United Nations partnerships for SDGs platform. Retrieved July 11, 2016, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/.
  65. UN Division for Sustainable Development. (2016). Goal 17 strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs).Google Scholar
  66. Van Hulst, M., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy “frames” to “framing” theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zeigermann, U. (2018). Akteure in Sekretariaten internationaler Organisationen. Das OECD-Sekretariat im Kontext der Policy Coherence for Development-Debatte. der moderne staat—Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, (2–2018), 367–387.Google Scholar
  69. Ziai, A. (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on “development” (Working Paper 103).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations