Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Public Administrations of the EU and the OECD and the Identification of Policy Coherence as a Problem for Global Cooperation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational Policy Entrepreneurs

  • 156 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter traces the processes by which policy coherence has been identified by actors in the international public administrations of the European Union and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as a political problem for international development cooperation. To structure the controversial debate on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), it suggests a classification according to different dimensions, levels and conceptual approaches. As such, the chapter offers insights on the influence of international public administrations in global policy-making. The study shows that it is not enough to conceptualize the Secretariats of the EU and the OECD as corporative actors. Instead, opening the black-box of international bureaucracies allows a more detailed analysis on the production and circulation of knowledge by different individual, collective and corporative actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andonova, L. B. (2017). Governance entrepreneurs: International organizations and the rise of global public–private partnerships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, F., King, M., & Matthews, A. (2010). Policy coherence for development: Five challenges. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 21, 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. (2016). Policy coherence for development under article 208 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—Towards a complaints mechanism (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2754079).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. F., Shaw, M., & Wellens, K. (2004). Accountability of international organisations (No. Fourth Report). Berlin: International Law Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R. (2014). The World Bank’s draft comprehensive development framework and the micro-paradigm of law and development. Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, 3(1), 158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, M. (2007). The European Union and international development: The politics of foreign aid. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, M. (2008). Mission impossible: The European Union and policy coherence for development. Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, M. (2012). Beyond aid: Policy coherence and Europe’s development policy. In G. Carbonnier (Ed.), International development policy: Aid, emerging economies and global policies (pp. 161–173). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, M. (2013). International development and the European Union’s external policies: Changing contexts, problematic nexuses, contested partnerships. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(3), 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, M., & Keijzer, N. (2016). The European Union and policy coherence for development: Reforms, results, resistance. European Journal of Development Research, 28(1), 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2007). The security—Development nexus and the rise of ‘anti-foreign policy’. Journal of International Relations and Development, 10(4), 362–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2010). International statebuilding: The rise of post-liberal governance. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2016). Handbook of regulatory impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (2002). What did structural adjustment adjust? The association of policies and growth with repeated IMF and World Bank adjustment loans (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1106277).

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists, dictators, and the forgotten rights of the poor. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W., Levine, R., & Roodman, D. (2003). New data, new doubts: Revisiting “aid, policies, and growth” (Working Paper No. 26). Washington, DC: CGDEV.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2019a). Europe remains the world’s biggest development donor—€74.4 billion in 2018 [Text]. EC Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2019b). Policy coherence for development: 2019 EU report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englehart, N. A. (2009). State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace Research, 46(2), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009a). EU report on policy coherence for development (Commission Staff Working Document No. SEC (2009) 1137 final).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009b). Impact assessment guidelines.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2015). Policy coherence for development 2015 EU report (Commission Staff Working Document No. SWD (2015) 159 final).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J., & Lohman, L. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “Development” and bureaucratic power in Lesotho, 24(5), 176–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. B. (1990). When knowledge is power: Three models of change in international organizations (Vol. 9). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M., & Haas, E. B. (1995). Learning to learn: Improving international governance. Global Governance, 1(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, N., & Westrup, C. (2012). Power/knowledge and impact assessment: Creating new spaces for expertise in international development (Report). New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H. (2004, March). The limits of the liberal peace. Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleiner, G. (2002). Local ownership and donor performance monitoring: New aid relationships in Tanzania? Journal of Human Development, 3(2), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoebink, P. (2004a). Evaluating Maastricht’s Triple C: An introduction to the development paragraphs of the treaty on the European Union and suggestions for its evaluation. In The treaty of Maastricht and Europe’s development co-operation (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoebink, P. (2004b). Evaluating Maastricht’s Triple C: The ‘C’ of coherence. In The treaty of Maastricht and Europe’s development co-operation (pp. 183–218). Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobi, A. P. (2009). International organizations and lifelong learning from global agendas to policy diffusion. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobi, A. P., & Martens, K. (2010). Mechanisms of OECD governance: International incentives for national policy-making? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, D. (2011). Good governance, state capacity, and the millennium development goals. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 10(2), 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S., & Raube, K. (2013). The security—Development nexus and securitization in the EU’s policies towards developing countries. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(3), 556–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, C. (2012). Conflict and fragility: Policy coherence challenges in the “conflict and fragility” issue area (Background Paper). OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewe, M. (2005). Die Millennium Development Goals: Hintergrund, Bedeutung und Bewertung aus Sicht der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (DIE Discussion Paper, 12/2005). Bonn: DIE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, E., Savage, L., & Kim, S.-M. (2014). A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographical Journal, 180(1), 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J. (1996). The poverty of nations: The aid dilemma at the heart of Africa. London; New York: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nay, O. (2012). How do policy ideas spread among international administrations? Policy entrepreneurs and bureaucratic influence in the UN response to AIDS. Journal of Public Policy, 32(01), 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1961). Supplementary protocol no. 1 to the convention on the OECD. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Ed.). (2009a). Aid effectiveness. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009b). Building blocks for policy coherence for development. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Ed.). (2009c). Do no harm. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012a). Improving international support to peace processes: Key workshop recommendations, Geneva, 19–21 September 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Ed.). (2012b). OECD strategy on development. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013a). Better policies for development: In focus: Policy coherence for development and global food security. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013b). Policy coherence for inclusive and sustainable development: OECD and post-2015 reflections (Element Paper 8). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). About INCAF—OECD [OECD Official Website]. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from About INCAF. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD PCD Unit. (2014). Policy coherence for development and the sustainable development goals (Concept Note 17–18 Dec 2014). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/DAC (Ed.). (1996). Shaping the 21st century: The contribution of development co-operation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/DAC. (2001). The DAC guidelines—Poverty reduction. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/DAC. (2003). Policy coherence: Vital for global development (Policy Brief). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/DAC. (2019). Development aid drops in 2018, especially to neediest countries—OECD. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto, R. (2005). The evaluation of policy coherence for development. Evaluation, 11(3), 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijksoverheid. (2013). Result chains to assess the impact of policy coherence for development in selected partner countries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saurugger, S. (2010). Beyond compliance: Instruments of resistance in the EU. In Political Studies Association Annual Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmelzer, M. (2016). The hegemony of growth: The OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Selby, J. (2013). The myth of liberal peace-building. Conflict, Security & Development, 13(1), 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ury, W. L., Fisher, R., & Patton, B. M. (1992). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, O. (1989). Security, the speech act analysing the politics of a word. In Centre of Peace and Conflict Research, Research Training Seminar (2nd Draft).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. ([1922] 2013). Economy and society (Reprint edition). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whaites, A. (2015). Competing for the future: Propositions of power and governance in development (Background Paper). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensohn, J. (1999). A proposal for a comprehensive development framework. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. R., & Peterson, J. (2013). ‘We care about you, but …’: The politics of EU trade policy and development. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(3), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

    Ulrike Zeigermann

Authors
  1. Ulrike Zeigermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Zeigermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zeigermann, U. (2020). International Public Administrations of the EU and the OECD and the Identification of Policy Coherence as a Problem for Global Cooperation. In: Transnational Policy Entrepreneurs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44893-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation