Investigating the Two Faces of Governance: the case of the Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank

Abstract

The literature on governance has recently witnessed a growing tension between a techno-managerial account of governance and a power-sensitive approach. This article argues that the downgrading of power relations by the techno-managerial approach is significantly problematic and counterproductive. Building on the case of the Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank, the article shows how the EU's articulation of the techno-managerial approach has had serious negative implications. On the one hand, it re-emphasised the embedded long-term power asymmetries that have characterised the EU's general governance attitude relationship with its Mediterranean partners. On the other hand, it compromised the credibility of EU policies in addressing and pressing for further reforms in the Mediterranean region.

Notes

1 TG Weiss ‘Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges’, Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 2000, pp 795–814.

2 RAW Rhodes ‘Governance and public administration’, in J Pierre (ed), Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp 54–90.

3 JN Rosenau, ‘Governance in the twenty-first century’, Global Governance, 1(1), 1995, pp 13–43.

4 G Hyden ‘Operationalising governance for sustainable development’, in JE Jreisat Governance and Developing Countries, Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp 13–32.

5 DC North, ‘The New Institutional Economics’, in J Harriss, J Hunter & CM Lewis (eds), The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, London: Routledge, 1995, pp 15–24.

6 W Hout & R Robison, ‘Development and the politics of governance: framework for analysis’, in Hout & Robison (eds), Governance and the Depoliticisation of Development, London: Routledge, 2009, pp 1–11. See also R Robison ‘Strange bedfellows: political alliances in the making of neo-liberal governance’ and W Hout ‘Development and governance: an uneasy relationship’, in Hout & Robison, Governance and the Depoliticisation of Development, pp 15–28, 29–43.

7 Hout & Robison, ‘Development and the politics of governance’, p 5. See also Hout's introductory article in this issue.

8 AM Kjaer ‘Introduction: the meaning of governance’, in Kjaer (ed), Governance, Cambridge: Polity, 2004, pp 1–18.

9 See E Ostrom, ‘An agenda for the study of institutions’, Public Choice, 48, 1986, pp 3–25. Cf BG Peters, Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.

10 EG Furubotn & R Richter, Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005, pp 1–45.

11 See the work of O Williamson, D North and J Stiglitz. For a good summary on this debate, see C Ménard & MM Shirley, ‘Introduction’, in Ménard & Shirley (eds), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp 1–18.

12 DC North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p 362.

13 A Denzau & DC North, ‘Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions’, Kyklos, 47(1), 1994, pp 3–31.

14 DC North, ‘Economic performance through time’, American Economic Review, 84(3), 1994, p 361.

15 North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, p 140.

16 See D Acemoglu & S Johnson, ‘Unbundling institutions’, Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 2005, pp 949–995. See also D Acemoglu, S Johnson & JA Robinson, Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 10481, Cambridge, MA: NBER, 2004.

17 O Williamson, ‘The New Institutional Economics: taking stock, looking ahead’, Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 2000, pp 595–613. See also DC North, Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

18 See E Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions of Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

19 For instance, World Bank, World Development Report: The State in a Changing World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp 99–109; and World Bank, Managing Development: The Governance Dimension—A Discussion Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank, 1991, pp 1–23.

20 JG March & JP Olsen, ‘The new institutionalism: organisational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review, 78, 1984, pp 738–749; and March & Olsen, ‘Institutional perspectives on political institutions’, Governance, 9, 1996, pp 247–264.

21 PA Hall & RCR Taylor, ‘Political science and the three institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44(4), 1996, pp 936–957; and PA Hall, ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policy-making in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25(3), 1993, pp 185–196.

22 C Ansell, ‘Network institutionalism’, in RAW Rhodes, SA Binder & BA Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp 75–89.

23 C Hay, ‘Ideas, interests and institutions in the comparative political economy of great transformations’, Review of International Political Economy, 11(1), 2004, pp 204–226.

24 R Swedberg, ‘The tool kit of economic sociology’, in BR Weingast & DA Wittman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp 937–950.

25 B Jessop, ‘Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance’, Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 1997, pp 561–581.

26 Ibid, p 565.

27 Hout & Robison, ‘Development and the politics of governance’, p 5.

28 This is an updated version of a section that appeared in K Knio, ‘Governance, politics and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership: problems of implementation or policy design?’, in Hout & Robison, Governance and the Depoliticisation of Development, pp 77–91.

29 The 12 MPs are Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Libya has observer status under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership agreements. Since joining the EU in 2004 Cyprus and Malta have no longer been MPs. Israel and Turkey are technically MPs but are in a sui generis position. Israel is not eligible for many EU funds since it is considered to be a semi-developed economy. Turkey is also not eligible for funding because of its current negotiations with the EU in relation to potential future membership. See European Commission, Information Notes on the Euro-Med Partnership, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002.

30 In 2005 migration was added as the fourth chapter under the Barcelona Process, reflecting the gradually increasing importance of this agenda in recent years. See European Commission, Ministerial Conclusions of the first Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Meeting on Migration, 19 November 2007, at http://www.eu2007.pt/UE/vEN/Noticias_Documentos/20071119Conclusoeseuromed.html, accessed 2 December 2009.

31 After the French mesure d'ajustement (adjustment measure).

32 D Hunt, ‘Development economics, the Washington Consensus and the Euro Mediterranean Partnership Initiative’, in G Joffé (ed), Perspectives on Development, London: Frank Cass, 1999, pp 16–38.

33 European Commission, Wider Europe-Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM(2003)104 final.

34 European Commission, A Strong European Neighbourhood Policy, COM(2007)774 final, 2007.

35 Ibid.

36 European Commission, Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: A Work Program to Meet the Challenges of the Next Five Years, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, 2005.

37 Ibid, pp 5, 9.

38 Ibid, p 13.

39 The members of the UM are all EU member states, the European Commission, the MPs, observer status countries under the Barcelona Process (Albania, Libya, Mauritania) and other Mediterranean coastal states (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Monaco and Montenegro). See European Commission, Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, COM(2008)319 final.

40 European Commission, Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, p 6.

41 Ibid, p 2.

42 Ibid, p 9.

43 European Commission, Shaping Support for Private Sector Development in the Mediterranean, SEC(2003), ECFIN/366, p 2.

44 European Commission, A New Euro-Mediterranean Bank, SEC(2002)218.

45 European Commission, Shaping Support for Private Sector Development in the Mediterranean, p 2.

46 Ibid, p 5.

47 Ibid.

48 Extended Impact Assessments are tools used by the European Commission to improve the policy development process. They examine the main choices and potential impacts of a particular policy decision from an ex-ante perspective. In so doing, they identify the likely positive and negative impacts of a potential policy action, enable informed policy judgments and identify tradeoffs between competing policy targets. The criteria used by the Commission in this study focus on: risk profile, intensity of resources, corporate culture, partnership, interaction with local economic reforms, long-term political commitment and visibility and overall costing. See ibid, pp 9-15. See also European Commission, Communication of the Commission on Impact Assessment, COM(2002)276; and European Commission, Commission Work Programme 2003, COM(2002)0590, Annex 2.

49 European Commission, Shaping Support for Private Sector Development in the Mediterranean, p 14.

50 European Commission, Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, p 13.

51 European Commission, Barcelona Process, p 9.

52 See FEMIP's website at http://www.eib.org/projects/regions/med/index.htm, accessed 2 December 2009.

53 R Youngs, ‘The Barcelona Process after the UK presidency: the need for prioritization’, Mediterranean Politics, 4(1), 1999, pp 1–24.

54 G Joffé, The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: Two Years After Barcelona, Royal Institute of International Affairs Briefing Paper 44, London: Chatham House, 1998, pp 1–4.

55 G Escribano, Europeanisation without Europe? The Mediterranean and the Neighbourhood Policy, European University Institute Working Papers, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies 2006/19, 2006, pp 1–20.

56 European Commission, The Barcelona Process: Ten Years On, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005.

57 D Müller-Jentsch, Deeper Integration and Trade in Services in the Euro-Mediterranean Region: Southern Dimensions of the European Neighbourhood Policy, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.

58 See European Commission, Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy, COM(2006)726 final.

59 European Commission, Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2008, COM(2009)188/3, pp 3-7.