![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the extent bilateral adoption of Aid for Trade (AfT) norms in Europe is the result of a Europeanisation process. Using three case study countries (Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic) we examine the level of Europeanisation across policies, polities and politics. We highlight the roles played by socialisation and capacity within this field, which forms an important test case for the Europeanisation of development policies as it blurs the distinction between the European Union (EU)-member state shared competences of development with the EU single competence of trade. We find significant variation in both the depth and speed in adapting the EU AfT norms. Our investigation into the AfT Europeanisation process in Germany, Ireland and the Czech Republic found this variation to be a function of both capacity and socialisation with the caveat that capacity appears as a more influential explanatory factor in the depth of Europeanisation while socialisation may promote a speedier process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Samuel Brazys http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4482-4234
Notes
1. The EU's trade and development nexus has received considerable scholarly attention. See Carbone & Orbie (Citation2014) and Young (Citation2014).
2. The broader role and engagement of the EU in the WTO's AfT efforts is discussed more extensively by Holden (Citation2014).
3. That AfT was the result of a hard-fought political negotiation, rather than being a simple technical fix, is perhaps responsible for the vagueness in AfT noted above (with thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this point). It is also worth noting that while the EU's AfT effort enlisted the services of both the DG Trade and DG Development polities, as the AfT norm was developed through the WTO it is the former who comes out as most instrumental to the initiative.
4. Indeed, in a statement to the Plenary, then Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson ‘called out’ fellow members by noting that the EU gave more TRA ‘than the rest of the world combined’ and that ‘It is time for others to make a similar commitment’ (WTO, Citation2005b, p. 2).
5. These six recommendations are: (1) ‘integrate trade and growth issues more effectively in their (donor) aid programming;’ (2) ‘further strengthen their (donor) trade expertise both in the field and in capitals’; (3) ‘use needs assessment processes (where available), and their results, as a basis for their (donor) programming’; (4) ‘move towards a programme/ sector/ budget approach, if country owned, if mainstreamed in national development strategies and if a robust system of financial accountability is in place’; (5) ‘make targeted funds available for building infrastructure and removing supply side constraints – over and above capacity building and technical assistance’; and (6) ‘consider channeling (sic) Aid-for-Trade Funds multilaterally, when appropriate’ (WTO, Citation2006).
6. The initial objectives were: ‘Increasing the collective volumes of EU AfT within the ambitious development commitments to raise overall EU aid gradually’; ‘Enhancing the pro-poor focus and quality of EU AfT’; ‘Increasing EU-wide and Member States’ donors capacity in line with globally agreed aid effectiveness principles’; ‘Building upon, fostering and supporting ACP regional integration processes with an ACP-specific angle of the Joint EU AfT Strategy’; ‘Supporting effective AfT monitoring and reporting’ (Council of the European Union, Citation2007, p. 4). Further objectives were added in subsequent annual monitoring reports (European Commission, Citation2011, Citation2012, Citation2013), though none of these objectives were picked up by the members states in our study.
7. We would note, here, that operationalising both ‘speed’ and ‘depth’ is problematic. As such, rather than establishing a priori benchmarks we instead use comparative measure. This allows us to evaluate our hypotheses and at least provides a baseline for future efforts at operationalisation.
8. Despite being identified as one of the six ‘advanced’ adopters of EU AfT recommendations in the 2008 monitoring report (European Commission, Citation2008, p. 14).
9. These institutions were the Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst (DED), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), and the Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung (InWEnt).
10. Available at: www.giz.de/expertise/html/5696.html (accessed 28 August 2014).
11. Ireland's attention to trade-capacity matters pre-dates both the informal Leeds meeting and the Hong Kong ministerial. In 2002 the Irish Aid Advisory Committee produced a report entitled ‘Building Trade Capacity: Options for Irish Aid’.
12. Then Minister of State for Trade Joe Costello heavily referenced this document in a speech at the OECD Policy Dialogue on Aid for Trade in 2013.
13. With Minister Lenihan exclaiming in November 2005 that ‘Ireland welcomes the increased focus on AfT’ (DFA Press Release 22/11/2005), available at http://web.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=25381 (accessed 28 August 2014).
14. This section utilises Němečková et al. (Citation2012) for the data.