The Paradigm Shift of Danish Development Policy (1990–2020)

Abstract

For decades, Danish Development Policy was characterized by continuity, backed, as it was, by a relatively stable consensus across the political spectrum. However, this changed in the new Millennium where a paradigm shift in Danish development policy took place. This article characterizes and explains the paradigm shift and identifies its main driving forces. Drawing on Peter Hall’s policy paradigm framework, I identify development policy changes as a first, second, as well as a third order change, which constitutes a fundamental paradigm shift. Aid has been cut by almost a third, and the composition of instruments has changed with reduced allocations to bilateral country programmes, reduced allocations to the poorest and most stable countries, and increased allocations to humanitarian aid and areas of origin of migrants. Other purposes such as e.g. security concerns, global climate mitigation, or reducing migration flows, have to a large extent substituted the longstanding main objective of poverty reduction. International events and tendencies are of course important factors in explaining these significant development policy shifts, but domestic driving forces are equally important and consist mainly in a politicization of development aid enabled by a prior shift in policy-arena, both driven by domestic coalition politics. The politicization happened when a centre-right government was elected in 2001 and enabled a paradigm shift that happened over the 00s and which has been consolidated by the Social democratic minority government since 2019.

Keywords:

• policy paradigms
• policy arenas
• development policy
• development aid
• Denmark

Acknowledgements

Previous versions of this article received very helpful comments from Lars Engberg-Pedersen, Peter Munk Christiansen, Anne Binderkrantz, Thorsten Borring Olesen, Tove Degnbol and Thomas Ravn Petersen, for which I'm grateful. Thanks for many discussions and good comments to my co-editors of this special issue, Jan Pettersson, Elling Tjønneland, and Marikki Karhu. Finally, thanks to two anonymous reviewers for carefully reading and thoughtfully commenting on the piece.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Some aid for the poorest countries may be given through other means, so these numbers may be higher. However, they do show a significant decline.

2 See e.g. the High Commissioners ‘strong opposition’ to externalizing asylum-seeking at UNHCR – News comment by UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi on Denmark's new law on the transfer of asylum-seekers to third countries or the African Union statement at Press Statement On Denmark’s Alien Act provision to Externalize Asylum procedures to third countries | African Union (au.int).

3 Interview, former chair of parliaments’ foreign policy committee, August, 2019.

4 The current law was passed in 2012 and states that the primary objective of Danish ODA is to help promote sustainable development and poverty reduction, democracy and human rights (Lov, 2012).

5 The OECD DAC average ODA fell from about 0.3 per cent of GNI in 1990 to about 0.2 in 2000 (OECD DAC data, see also Kjær, 2020).

6 Source: Authors compilation of data from: Rune Stubager, Kasper Møller Hansen and Jesper Sommer Jensen (2020). Det danske valgprojekt (the Danish election project). ‘Danske vælgere 1971–2019 and (for 2020) Advice/MFA (2020). Stigende opbakning til Danmarks Udviklingssamarbejde. København, Udenrigsministeriet.

7 Former politician and head of the parliamentary committee of foreign affairs, interviewed, June 20th, 2019.

8 This political control of development policy was noted by several observers interviewed. It reflects a general feature of the Social democratic government which has been noted across policy sectors, see e.g. Christensen and Mortensen (2021); Moe Fejerskov, 2021; Wang, 2022.

9 This was confirmed by several interview respondents among observers and politicians.

10 Although he was definitely more skeptical towards aid than the centre parties or the Social democrats, Ellmann Jensen liked to strengthen embassies and aiding the former communist countries in Eastern Europe (Bach et al., 2008, p. 397).

11 Interview, the Liberal Party’s then speaker of Foreign Policy, August 2019; Interview, former Chairman of Danidas Board, October, 2018.

12 See the debate at the webpage of the Danish Parliament Folketinget, http://webarkiv.ft.dk/?/Samling/19971/salen/F3_BEH1_10_2_49.htm

13 Confirmed in personal interview, 18 oktober, 2021.

14 Source: Own counting of searches in the Danish news data base, Infomedia.

15 In 2013, the Board was abolished and a new set up with a programme committee introduced. However, after a few years, the current Council resembles the former Board. The overall tendency for it to have less influence remains the same.

16 See, for instance, Bermeo (2017) on the international trend to channel aid to countries of proximity because of the migration factor, or Brown et al. (2016) on the international securitization of foreign aid.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anne Mette Kjær

Anne Mette Kjær is a Professor of Political Science at Aarhus University with a focus on the Politics of Development. Her latest publications include ‘Nomination violence in Uganda's National Resistance Movement' in African Affairs (2021); and ‘When ‘Pockets of effectiveness' matter politically: Extractive industry regulation and taxation in Uganda and Tanzania'. The Extractive Industries and Society. Kjær co-authored the volume, ‘The Politics of African Industrial Policy’, Cambridge University Press, 2015 and is currently leading the research programme Political Settlements and Revenue Bargaining in Africa.