![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
In 1975 the Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States was created after the then 46 states concluded a cooperation partnership with the European Economic Community. This article draws on the literature on international organisation (IO) independence and performance to analyse the ACP Group’s evolution and functioning over time. Its findings show that whereas the ACP Group has generally failed to deliver on its supra-national objectives, its members have used Group membership as a means to accessing European Union benefits. This confirms recent research that dependent and non-performing IOs may serve important funding and patronage purposes to their members.
Acknowledgement
The interviews conducted for writing this article were conducted in the context of research project led by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM). Initial findings were published in the final report of this project: Bossuyt, Jean, Niels Keijzer, Alfonso Medinilla and Marc de Tollenaere. The future of ACP-EU relations: A political economy analysis, Maastricht, 2016.
Notes
1. ACP, The ACP Group, 1.
2. ACP, Sipopo Declaration, 13.
3. E.g. Kühnhardt, ‘The EU and ACP Countries’; Elgström, ‘Partnership in Peril’; Arts and Dickson, EU Development Cooperation.
4. The interviewees concerned six ACP ambassadors (Interviews 1–6), three staff members of the ACP Secretariat (7–9), and one independent ACP consultant (10).
5. Barnett and Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies’; Gutner and Thompson, ‘The Politics of IO Performance’.
6. Dijkstra, ‘Collusion in International Organisations’.
7. Haftel and Thompson, ‘The Independence of International Organizations’; see also Lall, ‘Beyond Institutional Design’; Dijkstra, ‘Collusion in International Organisations’.
8. Lall, ‘Beyond Institutional Design’.
9. Ibid.
10. UIA, ‘Number of International Organisations’.
11. Gutner and Thompson, ‘The Politics of IO Performance’.
12. Gray, ‘Patronage Explanations,’ 3; Haftel and Thompson, ‘The Independence of International Organizations’.
13. Barnett and Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies’; Gutner and Thompson, ‘The Politics of IO Performance’.
14. Barnett and Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies’.
15. See note 8 above.
16. See note 6 above.
17. Barnett and Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies’; Gray, ‘Patronage Explanations’.
18. Gray, ‘Patronage Explanations’.
19. Barnett and Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies,’ 703.
20. Ravenhill, Collective Clientelism, 22.
21. Slocum-Bradley, ‘Constructing and De-Constructing the ACP’; Langan, ‘The Moral Economy of EU Association’.
22. Mut-Bosque, Setting the Framework, 287.
23. Green, ‘The Child of Lomé,’ 6.
24. Hewitt, ‘The Lomé Conventions,’ 24, 25.
25. Frey-Wouters, The European Community, 260.
26. The same approach was used for all subsequent EU-ACP agreements.
27. In 2003 the agreement was revised to also allow ACP Group membership based on geographic proximity. This allowed for Cuba’s accession, since it did not sign the Cotonou Agreement, as well as for South Africa, Sudan and Equatorial Guinea which did not ratify subsequent revisions.
28. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality,’ 142.
29. ACP, Georgetown Agreement, 1.
30. Ravenhill, Collective Clientelism, 315.
31. Babb and Babb, Study on the Future, 71.
32. Mut-Bosque, Setting the Framework, 304; Hewitt, ‘The Lomé Conventions,’ 25.
33. Krieger, The Oxford Companion, 507.
34. Drieghe, ‘Lomé I herbekeken,’ 223; Kühnhardt, ‘The EU and ACP Countries,’ 240.
35. Drieghe, ‘Lomé I herbekeken,’ 77–88, 234.
36. For a detailed discussion of the reforms introduced under Cotonou, see Arts and Dickson, EU Development Cooperation.
37. Drieghe, ‘Lomé I herbekeken,’ 33.
38. Miller, ‘Paradigms in Caribbean Trade,’ 3.
39. ACP, ‘Strategy for Renewal,’ 17.
40. Interview 1.
41. Mgbere, ‘Cooperation Between the European Community,’ 278.
42. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality’; Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community’.
43. Ravenhill, Collective Clientelism, 319.
44. Mahase-Moiloa, ‘Acceptance Statement,’ 8.
45. Ramphal, ‘ACP Beginnings’.
46. ACP, ‘Guidelines on Working Methods’.
47. Ibid.
48. Babb and Babb, Study on the Future, 74; Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community’.
49. Interview 1.
50. Interview 1, 3.
51. Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community,’ 177.
52. Interview 3, 9.
53. Interview 5.
54. Interview 2, 5.
55. Interview 1, 3, 5, 6.
56. Mailafia, ‘Europe seen from Africa,’ 236.
57. Interview 2, 3, 5, 8.
58. ACP, Georgetown Agreement (2003), 6.
59. Interview 5.
60. Interview 7.
61. EU, ‘Action Document – 2014’.
62. Interview 7.
63. Interview 7.
64. ACP, ‘Strategy for Renewal,’ 39.
65. ACP, Georgetown Agreement (2003), 10.
66. Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community,’ 186.
67. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality’; Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community’.
68. European Court of Auditors, Annual Report.
69. Personal Communication.
70. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality,’ 142–3.
71. See note 25 above.
72. Interview 8.
73. Mailafia, ‘Europe seen from Africa,’ 236.
74. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality,’ 132; Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community,’ 185.
75. Interview 10.
76. Interview 3, 5.
77. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality,’ 181; Mgbere, ‘Cooperation between the European Community,’ 316.
78. Interview 7, 8, 10.
79. Interview 5, 8.
80. Mailafia, Europe and Economic Reform in Africa, 77.
81. Interview 5.
82. See note 30 above.
83. EU, ‘Action Document – 2015,’ 10.
84. Matheson, ‘Institutional Capacity and Multiple Conditionality’.
85. Interview 8.
86. Interview 6.
87. Interview 1, 5.
88. Interview 2, 6.
89. EU, ‘Action Document – 2015,’ 6.
90. Interview 10.
91. ACP, ‘Strategy for Renewal,’ 9.
92. SACO, Evaluation of the EDF, 5.
93. SACO, Evaluation of the EDF, 46.
94. ACP, ‘Strategy for Renewal,’ 40.
95. EU, ‘Action Document – 2015,’ 5, 6.
96. Interview 7, 8.