Policy Coherence for Development in the European Union: Do New Procedures Unblock or Simply Reproduce Old Disagreements?

References

• Ackrill, R., and A. Kay. 2011. Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy 18: 72–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelle, C., J. Hertin, and A. Jordan. 2006. Sustainable development ‘outside’ the European Union: what role for impact assessment. European Environment 16: 57–72.
   Google Scholar
• Adelle, C., A. Jordan, and J. Turnpenny. 2012. Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart: a systematic review of policy appraisal research and practices. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30: 401–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelle, C., and S. Weiland. 2012. Policy assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30: 25–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashoff, G. 2005. Enhancing policy coherence for development: justification, recognition and approaches to achievement. Bonn: German Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bretherton, C., and J. Vogler. 2008. The European Union as a sustainable development actor: the case of external fisheries policy. European Integration 30: 401–17.
   Google Scholar
• Carbone, M. 2008. Mission impossible: the European Union and policy coherence for development. Journal of European Integration 30: 323–42.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M., T. Richardson, T. Hilding-Ryedvik, and L. Emmelin. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 371–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CONCORD. 2011. Spotlight on policy coherence for development. Report 2011. Brussels: CONCORD.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2005. 2660th Council meeting, external relations. 8817/05 (Press 112), Brussels, 23 May.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C.A., M. Maggetti, C.M. Radaelli, and D. Russel. 2012. The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: a meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation and Governance 6: 23–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgström, O., and J. Pilegaard. 2008. Imposed coherence: negotiating economic partnership agreements. Journal of European Integration 30: 363–80.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2001. A sustainable Europe for a better world: a European Union strategy for sustainable development. COM (2001) 264.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2002. Impact assessment. COM (2002) 276.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2005. Impact assessment in the commission: guidelines. SEC (2005) 791.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2009a. EU 2009 report on policy coherence for development. COM (2009) 461.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2009b. Impact assessment guidelines. SEC (2009) 92.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2011. EU 2011 report on policy coherence for development. SEC (2011) 1627.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. no date. Impact assessment in the commission: guidelines. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors. 2010. Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making? Special Report Number 3. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors
   Google Scholar
• de Francesco, F., C.M. Radaelli, and V.E. Troeger. 2012. Implementing regulatory innovations in Europe: the case of impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy 19: 491–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furness, M. 2012. The Lisbon treaty, the European external action service and the reshaping of EU development policy. In The European Union and global development‬: an ‘enlightened superpower’ in the making?‬, eds. S. Gänzle, S. Grimm, and D. Makhan,74–94. Basingstoke: Plagrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gänzle, S., S. Grimm, and D. Makhan 2012. The European Union and global development‬: an ‘enlightened superpower’ in the making? Basingstoke: Plagrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm S., S. Gänzle, and D. Makhan 2012. The European Union and global development. In The European Union and global development‬: an ‘enlightened superpower’ in the making?‬, eds. S. Gänzle, S. Grimm, and D. Makhan. Basingstoke: Plagrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hertin, J., J. Turnpenny, A. Jordan, M. Nilsson, D. Russel, and B. Nykvist. 2009. Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and Planning A 41: 1185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoebink, P. 2001. Evaluating Maastricht’s triple C: the ‘C’ of coherence. Working Document December 2001. Nijmegen: CIDIN.
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords. 2012. Leaving a bitter taste? The EU Sugar Regime. European Union Committee 4th Report of Session 2012–13. House of Lords Issue paper 44.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., and A. Schout. 2006. The coordination of the European Union: exploring the capacities for networked governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keijzer, N. 2010. EU policy coherence for development: from moving the goalposts to result-based management? European Centre for Development Policy Management Discussion Paper 101, August 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Klavert, H., P. Engel, and E. Koeb. 2011. Still a thorn in the side? The reform of the common agricultural policy from the perspective of policy coherence for development. European Centre for Development Policy Management Discussion Paper No. 126.
   Google Scholar
• Lavenex, S. 2004. EU external governance in wider Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 11: 680–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavenex, S., and R. Kunz. 2008. The migration-development nexus in EU external relations. Journal of European Integration 30: 439–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lenschow, A. ed. 2002. Environmental policy integration: greening sectoral policies in Europe. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews, A. 2008. The European Union’s common agricultural policy and developing countries: the struggle for coherence. Journal of European Integration 30: 381–99.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews, A. 2010. How might the EU’s common agricultural policy affect trade and development after 2013? ICTSD Issue Paper No. 29. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M. 2006. The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: a study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences 38: 225–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., and L.J. Nilsson. 2005. Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy 5: 363–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 1996. Building policy coherence, tools and tensions, public management. Occasional Papers No. 12. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Official Journal. 2006. The European consensus on development. Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/C 46/01.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J.P. 2005. Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perri 6, D. Leat, K. Seltyer, and G. Stoker. 2002. Towards holistic governance. London: Plagrave.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M. 2010. Rationality, power, management and symbols: four images regulatory impact assessment. Scandinavian Political Studies 33: 164–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M., and A.C.M. Meuwese. 2010. Hard questions, hard solutions: proceduralisation through impact assessment in the EU. West European Politics 33: 136–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnpenny, J., C. Adelle, and A. Jordan. 2012. Policy appraisal. In Routledge of public policy, eds. E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, 244–54. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vogler, J., and H.R. Stephan. 2007. The European Union in global environmental governance: leadership in the making? International Environmental Agreements 7: 389–413.
   Google Scholar