Copyrighted material List of Figures and Tables. Foreword: Lost in Transition? Acknowledgements. Notes on Contributors

Transcription

1 Contents List of Figures and Tables Foreword: Lost in Transition? Acknowledgements Notes on Contributors List of Abbreviations ix x xiii xv xx Introduction: Diverging Theoretical Approaches to a Normative Research Field 1 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň Part I Members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee 1 Czechia: The Foreign Development Cooperation as a Policy without Politics 25 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň 2 Poland: Attempts at Defining Aid by Solidarity, Democracy and Development 43 Elżbieta Drażkiewicz-Grodzicka 3 Slovakia: A Donor Against Its Will? 64 Ondrej Gažovič and Tomáš Profant 4 Slovenia: What Options for a Small Donor? 82 Urška Zrinski and Maja Bučar Part II Non-DAC Member States of the OECD 5 Estonia: Coming Out of the Messianic Period 109 Vahur Made 6 Hungary: Understanding the Mentality of a Premature Donor 130 Balázs Szent-Iványi vii

2 viii Contents Part III Other EU Member States since Latvia: Impact of the European Union and the Financial Crisis 151 Pēteris Timofejevs Henriksson 8 Lithuania: A Hybrid Development Cooperation Policy 170 Laure Delcour Part IV EU Member States since Bulgaria: In Search of a New Focus 193 Anelia Damianova 10 Romania: From Ambiguity to Outsourcing 218 Mirela Oprea Case Study 1: The Transfer of the Transition Experience: What Contribution to the EU Development Policy? 234 Milan Konrád Case Study 2: The European Transition Compendium: Much Ado about Nothing? 239 Monika Hellmeyer Conclusion: Reflections from the Outside 242 Simon Lightfoot References 252 Index 282

3 Introduction: Diverging Theoretical Approaches to a Normative Research Field Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň A time to reflect upon two decades of the renewed development policies in Central and Eastern Europe The research on the Central and Eastern European (CEE) donors seems to follow the following famous quote from Hegel: The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering (Hegel, 2008, p. xxi). This is true in two overlapping ways: scholarly research usually comes after political practice, and a theoretical reflection builds on prior empirical findings. The first post-1989 development cooperation programme in the region was restarted by the Czech Republic in the mid-1990s and, since then, the other ten post-communist member states of the European Union (EU) started their own development cooperation programmes in an incremental, yet fragmented, manner. The research on development policies of the CEE states followed after a delay in the early 2000s, starting with Dauderstadt (2002) and Krichewski (2003) (see the literature review in Horký & Lightfoot, 2012, p. 3). The early research was mostly fragmented, descriptive and policy oriented. Once the institutions for providing aid were in place, the policymakers started to reflect on the preceding period of sustained development policy expansion and systematically look for their place in the European and international division of labour. Since then, many in-depth academic studies that are analysed further in this introduction focused primarily on individual countries and/or on particular aspects of development cooperation. However, there has been no serious attempt to reflect on this broadening research agenda in a holistic way. To push the opening metaphor even further, it can be said that the Hegelian dusk started to fall already during the Great Recession 1

4 2 Introduction of 2009, which led to the reduced or at least stagnating budgets that were statistically eligible for the Official Development Assistance (ODA) in most EU member states. These budget constraints have provided an additional incentive for the newcomers to reflect on smart low-cost development cooperation policies. Two recent anniversaries also present an opportunity for further reflection. In 2015, twenty years have passed since the renewal of the first post-1989 international development cooperation programme in the region, as the Czech Republic issued a government resolution that launched its foreign development aid policy before it joined the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in In addition to that, more than a decade has passed since the eight post-communist countries, with high expectations, accessed the European Union, the largest world donor, in Finally, the year 2015 marks the end of one global development framework initiated by the UN Millennium Declaration in 2000 and based on the goal of poverty eradication. It also opens the way for the new post-2015 joint agenda of global and sustainable development, to which the CEE countries will need to adapt. If Hegel makes it clear that we can never fully understand the present conditions of our time, this book is not only a retrospection in the native field of development studies. The internal analysis of development policies helps us to understand the political transition and European integration of the Central and Eastern European states and societies. Hence, it contributes to transition and European studies. A deeper understanding of the past CEE development policies and their determinants can also help us to outline their future in a global setting characterized by geopolitical multipolarity, a slowdown of the European economy and political integration and an increase in social inequalities and environmental vulnerability. Thus, it contributes to global and development studies as a whole. However, long before we get to the final synthesis of this book, this introduction prepares the ground for the subsequent country studies. First, it presents a literature review, identifies the research gaps and states the book s objectives in more detail. Secondly, it defines the development policies of CEE donors as an object of study and its limits. Thirdly and fourthly, it analyses the mainstream Europeanization and policy analysis approaches to CEE development cooperation and, fifthly, it analyses the alternative approaches that are more reflective of their own assumptions. The sixth and final part presents the common methodological framework of this book, based on the theoretical plurality of its chapters.

5 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň 3 The state of the art, research gaps and the book s objectives To date there has been no single academic book that covers all the Central and Eastern European providers of foreign aid in a comprehensive and critical way. While there is a substantial body of literature on the aid provided by the West to the former East in the 1990s (notably Wedel, 2001), there are only a few books on the aid provided by the Soviet bloc (also Soviet space from a Baltic perspective) to the Third World during the whole Cold War period. This is quite surprising since the Soviet Union, including the occupied Baltic states, and its formally independent satellites used to spend billions of dollars annually on preferential loans and commodity prices, turnkey delivery of industry plants and diverse technical assistance, not counting military aid (Müller, 1967 in English; Müller, 1970 in German; Vassilev, 1970 in French). Overall it was supposed to represent around 10 per cent of the total aid during the Cold War (Manning, 2006), but the financial estimations are dubious in centrally planned economies, as they are only partly related to world markets. Given that an important part of the East South aid was export-oriented and tied aid as is often the case today relevant references to CEE aid are also scattered in the literature on political and economic relations of the Soviet bloc with the Third World (notably Kanet, 1987). Special attention was paid by some of the CEE authors to technical assistance, and their works were published in English in the West (Kleer & Zacher, 1979; Šroněk, 1978), but foreign aid generally remains a grey area of Sovietology. A systematic review of the pre-1990 literature in Central and Eastern European languages, which is necessarily ideologically laden, remains an unfinished task, but the Western sources were to a high extent also produced by political, governmental and international organizations rather than independent scholars. For some countries it took less time to renew their development cooperation programmes after the inward-oriented period of political and economic transition than to become research objects in their own right. This is due to the limited transparency of foreign policy making and the availability of published data in the era of the early use of the internet by governments. Most information on these countries and their programmes, which was often contradictory, could only be gathered in interviews (see Paragi, 2010). Meanwhile, the published monographs explored only particular countries (Horký, 2010a in Czech), or they used two dominant and relatively focused theoretical approaches. Peteris Timofejevs Henriksson (2013) has studied the influence of the European Union on the development cooperation of

6 4 Introduction Slovenia and Latvia through the lens of Europeanization, and Simon Lightfoot and Balázs Szent-Iványi (2015) analyse the whole region using the governmental politics approach. More countries and topics were covered in the special issue of Perspectives on European Politics and Society (see Horký & Lightfoot, 2012 in the introduction), which was reprinted the following year as a book (Horký-Hlucháň & Lightfoot, 2013). Yet this attempt failed to include all CEE donors as well as those that do not make up a part of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) such as Russia and Turkey in a larger comparative approach. Moreover, alongside their different theoretical backgrounds, the studies do not share any common framework that would allow for comparing and synthesizing the development policies of the twelve EU member states since 2004 and 2007 (EU-12). It is not surprising that Timofejevs Henriksson (2013, p. 45) has pointed out the varying views regarding the influence of the EU on the CEE states, as well as the influence of other international actors on them. Nonetheless, if there was some consensual statement to be spelled out on the issue of the CEE development policies, it could be summarized as follows: a soft acquis from the EU, weak governmental structures, low political will and low public understanding prevented the policy from acquiring strong roots in the region (Horký & Lightfoot, 2012, p. 1). This diagnostic of the smallest common denominator might be acceptable for most authors, disregarding their theoretical background. However, it does not take into account the internal diversity of the group of twelve countries (now thirteen with Croatia) and the absence of a benchmark for measuring the strength of a policy. It is not only necessary to study the underlying theoretical assumptions and methodologies of the preceding research, but also crucial to scrutinize the concerned countries in a comparative perspective. This is where the authors of this book aim to bridge the research gap. The six objectives of this book can be summarized as follows. First, its main objective is to assess the post-cold War period undergone by the Central and Eastern European donors with a special emphasis on the ten years, to 2015, since the accession of the majority of them to the EU. The reason is not apriorithe crucial role of the EU but the fact that this last decade saw most of the developments in the area. Secondly, this book aims to provide readers with a comprehensive analysis of their development cooperation programmes in a larger political and societal context. It goes beyond the widespread descriptive and technical approach focused on quantitative commitments, sectoral and territorial priorities and the institutional framework. Thirdly, the book seeks

7 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň 5 to highlight national development cooperation programmes as a joint outcome of both internal and external factors. Among them path dependency, domestic politics, and the influence of the European Union and other international actors and organizations play a role. Fourthly, the goal of the comparative approach is to help us to understand the reemergence or, in some cases, emergence and further evolution of the development cooperation programmes in Central and Eastern Europe by taking into account the similarities and differences between the countries of the region. The fifth goal of the book is to go beyond the basic comparison by providing in-depth analysis of particular aspects of a country s development cooperation programme. Finally, the sixth objective of the book is to open the floor to non-mainstream theoretical approaches in development and European studies that question the meaning of imitating aid policies of the experienced donors as well as the relevance of the very concepts of emerging or re-emerging donors in the global development arena. Definition problems: Central and Eastern European donors or new EU member states? The study of an aspect of the public policy of the CEE countries seems to constitute a non-problematic research field. Indeed, the term Central and Eastern Europe is widely used both in academia as well as in policy making. Yet the use of the seemingly neutral and natural geographical boundaries of a part of Europe is a highly political endeavour. Even though the term Central and Eastern Europe makes up a part of the title of an important book on Europeanization by Franz Schimmelfennig and Ulrich Sedelmeier (2005), the editors did not find any urge to define it at all. When writing on the same topic François Bafoil (2009) at least explicitly defines the CEE countries as the group of post-communist states that entered the EU in 2004 and But do the four post-communist states of Central Europe (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland), the three countries of the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia) and the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) analysed in this publication exhaust the definition of Central and Eastern Europe? While Central and Eastern Europe is a seemingly fixed geographical denomination, the definitions of it in social and exact sciences vary and it is often interchanged with the term Eastern Europe. However, the pre-cold War idea to blanket-refer to all the countries of the Soviet bloc with one term is often seen as highly problematic in the region when indeed it is not directly contested

8 6 Introduction by many Central European citizens who do not identify with Eastern Europe, or do not feel that they belong to the same geographic and cultural area as Russia. Equally, adopting the openly political label related to the enlargement of the EU, a choice that we made for the title of this book, does not help much because of its fluidity. The case of Croatia, which was in a state of war in 1995, when development cooperation was restarting elsewhere in the region, and which entered the European Union only in 2013, shows how diverse the group of the new EU member states is. Nine years separate the entry of Austria, Finland and Sweden from the 2004 enlargement, which is the same interval as the one between the accession of Croatia and that of its neighbour Slovenia, for example. This makes the term of new EU member states or simply New Europe inadequate (see, for example, Braun, 2014 for its use in relation to Europeanization). Moreover, New Europe still bears the connotation of Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld s criticism of the restraint of Old Europe in regard to supporting the United States during the invasion of Iraq in Ever-changing abbreviations do not help, either. The original 2004 abbreviation EU-10 includes the insular Cyprus and Malta, which never made up a part of the Soviet bloc and which are seldom tackled by the CEE development cooperation literature, even though this is also due to the lack of scholars working on development cooperation in these relatively small Mediterranean countries. Then EU-10 changed to EU-12 in 2007 and finally to EU-13 in 2013, and the recently aborted accession of Iceland would also increase the internal diversity of the group. Since the most honest delimitation of the countries that are labelled as Central and Eastern Europe in development studies would be the awkward phrase post-communist EU members, it is understandable that the vague geographical label is preferred to the perfectly fitting political label. As is evident from this intentional definition, European integration and the transition from the East to the West are two key features of this object of study that make it different from other objects of study. This usually implies that the group is homogeneous and that the internal differences within the group are smaller than the differences between groups. Yet this distinction remains problematic, and in the case of European donors it is more appropriate to talk about a continuum expressed by the importance that governments place on development policy in political, financial and institutional terms. Indeed, the distinction between new and old EU donors could hold only until 2013

9 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň 7 because none of the member states that entered the EU after the turn of the millennium had also been members of the OECD DAC, a major norm-setting organization in the field of global development. However, the recent accession of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2013 has only confirmed the convergence between some of the newcomers and the previous OECD DAC latecomers of the Southern dimension of the EU, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and, to some extent, Italy, which were heavily affected by the global recession. It could be contested that the coherence of the group is ensured legally by the soft law of the European Union. Indeed, in 2005, the recently joined members managed to renegotiate the 2002 Barcelona commitments to reach the part of a statistical indicator of ODA on the Gross National Income (GNI) of 0.33 per cent ODA/GNI by 2006 (Carbone, 2007). The new commitments were softened in terms of their wording and postponed by nine years to 2015 while the old member states were obliged to reach the goal of 0.7 per cent ODA/GNI, which was agreed upon by the United Nations. However, as of 2013, no new member state was on track to reach the 0.33 per cent goal, and five old member countries did not reach it either (OECD, 2014), which shows how seriously the governments take the commitments irrespective of the global recession. Even though the goals could be considered as an expression of a double-speed Europe (Horký, 2011b), their non-enforceability can hardly justify the use of a geographical term for the post-communist EU members. Besides the EU-related dimension of the group, a quarter of a century after the end of Cold War in 1989, post-communism, i.e. the legacy of communism still plays a constitutive role in the definition. In spite of being labelled as new or emerging donors, the former Soviet satellites have a long post-war tradition of providing aid to the South. In the case of the Baltic States, which were formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, the tradition restarted on a new basis with specific questions (Hilmarsson, 2011), starting with Estonia in 1998 (Andrespok & Kasekamp, 2012), and with Latvia following in 1999 (Timofejevs Henriksson, 2013) because the aid was provided by Moscow. However, in the case of the Visegrád Group (V4) (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), it is more accurate to talk about an interruption that lasted less than five years in the Czech case from 1990 to 1994 and that was confirmed by a continuity of the group s territorial and sectoral priorities in its aid (Szent-Iványi & Tétényi, 2008). In spite of that, Mirella Oprea (2012) has shown that the rich tradition of Romania, the free rider of the Eastern bloc vis-à-vis the Third World, in providing

10 8 Introduction various forms of aid before 1989 was erased from the discourse, especially by the EU. Slovenia s preferential relations with the Third World as a non-aligned country also disappeared (Tomanić Trivundža, 2008). This is true for other countries of the region as well and therefore the following chapters give at least a glimpse of their pre-1990 activities. There is no doubt that the Eastern aid was, inter alia, ideologically motivated, since it was the Third World countries sympathizing with socialism that were chosen to be aid recipients (Szent-Iványi & Tétényi, 2008), but Western aid was not less determined by the Cold War (Boschini & Olofsgård, 2007). It is important to stress that, in spite of the labels that are also used in academia, most of the new member states are not new or emerging donors, provided that we step out of the Western OECD aid framework that imposed itself as the dominant model after the end of the Cold War. The main point of this discussion was to stress that the double transition from the former Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) to the EU, and from the communist and socialist East to the liberal democracy and social market economy of the West, is the key determinant of belonging to the group labelled as Central and Eastern Europe in development studies. It means that the underlying modernization theory is not only the dominant theoretical paradigm in the research on CEE donors, as it is analysed and criticized in the following sections of this introduction, but it is inherently connected with the very construction of the research object of CEE donors. The consequences go beyond the old versus new debate. It also means that the non-eu countries that made up a part of the CMEA are excluded from the reflection on the way the former East is divided, namely into countries that now make up a part of the global North and countries such as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, which became a part of the global South as new ODA recipients (Hohnman et al., 2014). Meanwhile another non-eu post-communist country, Russia, is providing aid to its neighbourhood and Africa and thus officially it should make up part of the global North. The nature of Russian military and humanitarian involvement on the Ukrainian territory since 2014 only complicates the picture. In any case, the divergence of the members of the group questions the meaningfulness of the concept of CEE donors as it is used today and points to the potential biases in this research area. Therefore, the title of this book builds on the political and historical definition related to EU enlargement but it stands apart from it by putting the CEE donors questionable newness between inverted commas and by adding a subtitle that indicates the willingness to go beyond the centrality of the EU as the norm-setter.

11 Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň 9 Revisiting the shallow Europeanization of CEE donors: from implementation gaps to power inequalities It is a difficult task to classify all the possible approaches to CEE development cooperation according to their theoretical assumptions. One reason is that the underlying theories and the related methodologies and methods are not always spelled out. Another reason is that the approaches do not present themselves in their pure form, they gain in complexity over time and more recently they combine or test several approaches. In spite of that, two ideal types of research on CEE donors can be established. The first type of mainstream research, mostly represented by the Europeanization and policy analysis models, can be labelled as positivist and rationalist (or, at most, soft constructivist). It seeks to explain and measure the performance of donors as the dependent variable against the ideal of a Western donor based on the external and internal independent variables. It relies more on quantitative methods and pretends to be value-neutral. The alternative type of approach to the donors can be labelled as (radically) constructivist and postpositivist. It is not necessarily critical of the mainstream approaches but it points to their partiality, and it puts more weight on the selfreflexivity of the researchers that are active in studying CEE donors. If the first group of approaches tries to explain the donors poor performance, the second one also looks at how and why the benchmarks were established and how they are related to the issue of power and donor identity. It looks for a holistic understanding of the development policy, which is not merely a technical issue dealt with by the traditional actors but a part of the geopolitical transition of Central and Eastern Europe. This introduction adopted the second approach since it would be impossible to reflect on the past research on CEE donors outside the post-positivist framework. However, it would be false to see both the ideal types as mutually conflicting. Indeed, the following chapters show that they complement each other very well. If European integration was not the only impetus for the new EU member states to become donors, European studies is by far the bestprepared academic field to tackle the issue naturally from its perspective. Especially in Central and Eastern Europe development studies were constituted as an academic field only after the general political amnesia of the global South during the 1990s, while the political goal of the return to Europe mobilized domestic and foreign resources for European studies much sooner. From the very beginning the research on CEE donors was highly politicized, as it very much reflected the positions of the

12 10 Introduction authors countries of activity towards the enlargement. The authors with links to the Southern dimension of the EU presented the Eastern enlargement as a clear threat (Doucet, 2001; Granell, 2005) while the others saw its potential effects on the EU s development policy in a more positive light (Carbone, 2004; Dauderstadt, 2002; Krichewski, 2003). In any case, the initial threats to dissolve the EU s development policy did not materialize (Carbone, 2011). After the accession, the framing of the new donors by the enlargement and accession gave place to the challenges for the newcomers and to the Europeanization model characterized by a focus on the download of the EU rules to the national level in Central and Eastern European states. The upload of preferences has attracted much less attention in the areas of the EU financial framework (Vencato, 2007) and the EU presidency (Horký, 2010d). The normativity of the Europeanization research was clear: the adherence to the current norms issued by the European Union would contribute to the normative goal of its development policy to help reduce global poverty. The use of the metaphors of stages of growth related to the modernization theory (Rostow, 1959) is not random: the CEE donors policies were said to be in infancy (Szent-Iványi & Tétényi, 2013, p. 820) but prone ultimately to become mature (Lightfoot, 2010, p. 347) with an underlying development ladder associable to the East West slope (see Melegh, 2006). These different identities give higher legitimacy to the Western models and influence policy-making in Central and Eastern Europe. It is important to stress that the normative focus on the acceptance of the EU s norms in the enlarged EU was present implicitly in the early research before it was tackled explicitly and more systematically (see Lightfoot, 2010; Horký, 2010d). In spite of its high relevance, the Europeanization approach was rightly criticized as a normative model that obscures the regional foundation of the policies and downturns the problems with causality between the European and national levels (Kuokštytė, 2012). However, one feature that had probably the biggest impact on policy was the initial lack of understanding of the EU as an evolving polity and the selective emphasis on some historical elements of the acquis communautaire, such as the aid to Sub-Saharan Africa that was conflicting with its other aspects, such as the principle of complementarity of aid. These criticisms are analysed further in this text, yet they started to appear already in the Europeanization research. This was made possible by the fact that more attention was continuously paid to the soft aspects of Europeanization even though most research attempted to test the validity of the rationalist or soft constructivist approaches.

13 Index academia, 5, 8, 16, 145, 225 Accra Agenda, 133, 209 acquis communautaire, 10, 134, 152, 220 Afghanistan, 14, 31, 33, 36, 69, 70, 74, 75, 93, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 138, 142, 144, 180, 181, 186, 197, 248 African, Caribbean, and Pacific, 100, 171, 249 aid commitment, 175, 219 aid for trade, 37, 209 aid volume, 16, 20, 30, 33, 34, 41, 140, 155, 158 Albania, 69, 74, 89, 119, 199, 204, 237 Algeria, 110, 199 altruism, 12, 13 ambiguity, 218, 232 Angola, 31, 45, 47, 110, 131 Armenia, 53, 116, 118, 119, 123, 128, 165, 199, 204 Austria, 6, 32, 69, 250 Azerbaijan, 53, 116, 118, 119, 123, 165, 199, 205, 226 Balkans, 5, 13, 61, 86, 125 see also Western Balkans Baltic States, 3, 5, 7, 13, 110, 123, 124, 173 Barcelona commitments, 7, 154, 155, 169 Belarus, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 69, 70, 74, 109, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123, 165, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186, 204, 237 bilateral, 27, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42, 70, 74, 75, 77, 85, 86, 90, 92 5, 97, 101, 102, 115, , 125 8, 131 4, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 157, 158, 159, 163, 165 7, 183, 193, 195, 198, 209, 213, 214, 216, 222, 224, 229, 234, 235, 238, 243, 244, 249, 250 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32, 69, 74, 85, 89, 119, 137, 143, 199, 205, 237 Brazil, 48, 126, 231 BRICS, 48, 231 Bulgaria, 5, 19, 20, , 235, 246, 250 Busan Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation, 99, 235 Cambodia, 36, 69, 131, 133 Central and Eastern European donors, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 143, 236, 237, 238 China, 110, 228, 231 civil society, 20, 45, 53, 54, 71, 77, 90, 93, 112, 119, 152, 160, 162, 163, 164, 167, 182, 183, 184, 196, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 226, 227, 229, 236, 241, 242, 248 civil society organizations, 34, 98, 110, 112, 119, 123, 163, 208, 210, 214, 221, 225, 248, 249 Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour, 133 Cold War, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 26, 46, 47, 84, 131, 243 see also Post-Cold War period colonialism, 55, 219 see also postcolonialism communism, 8, 45, 55, 58, 64, 66, 77, 124, 131, 132, 185, 218, 233, 237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 245, 252, 254 communism, fall of, 55, 171 see also post-communism CONCORD, 96, 194, 203, 204 conditionality, 11, 13, 31, 41, 72, 153, 172, 173, 178, 188, 195, 228, 231 constructivism, 9, 10, 11,

14 Index 283 contributions, 20, 26, 35, 65, 85, 92, 93, 115, 121, 131, 135, 136, 142, 155, 175, 216, 236 Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), 8, 26, 243, 245 Croatia, 4, 6, 92, 115, 205, 235 Cuba, 45, 64, 110, 131 Cyprus, 6, 115, 246 Czechoslovakia, 18, 26, 27, 64, 66, 244, 245 Czech Republic, also Czechia, 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 25 42, 73, 78, 115, 139, 145, 155, 171, 174, 229, 234, 237, 238, 244, 247 democracy, 8, 43 63, 65, 71, 72, 76, 78, 79, 105, 110, 117, 123, 124, 137, 141, 142, 176, 180, 182, 185, 186, 209, 226, 231, 235, 237, 239 developing countries, 34, 45, 69, 72, 73, 77, 84, 90, 131, 135, 139, 140, 160, 167, 182, 193, 194, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232, 241, 248, 249 development assistance, 44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 62, 72, 119, 121, 130, 136, 137, 142, 144, 194, 195, 196 9, , 243, 245, 248 Development Assistance Committee, 4, 7, 12, 20, 23, 28, 29, 48, 51, 80, 82, 83, 86, 88, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 112, 126, 128, 145, 168, 234 Development Cooperation and Democracy Promotion Department, 174 Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance, 37, 87, 91, 95, 112, 113, 115 Development Cooperation Instrument, 171, 176, 241 development studies, 2, 6, 8, 9, 17, 102, 182, 242 division of labour, 1, 87, 89, 101, 133 Eastern Bloc, 7, 41, 243, 245 Eastern Partnership, 43, 52, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 110, 111, 113, 116, 122, 123 6, 165, 176, 177, 178, 186, 237, 249 economic crisis, 20, 79, 139, 144, 152, 175, 179, 194, 213 see also financial crisis e-governance, 117, 124, 127, 238 Egypt, 59, 74, 199, 237 emerging donors, 5, 7, 8, 17, 49, 52, 226, 228, 231, 232, 233 Estonia, 5, 7, , 155, 167, 171 Ethiopia, 31, 41, 110, 131, 143, 180, 222 EU accession, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 43, 46, 48, 84, 85, 90, 103, 110, 113, 117, 124, 125, 132, 134, 151, , 158, 162, 163, 170, 171, 172, 173 5, 177, 178, 179, 183, 187, 188, 193, 202, 221, 229, 232, 235, 237, 238, 242 EU development policy, 152, 153, 166, 228, 234, 238, 239, 241, 243, 249, 250 EU enlargement, 6, 8, 10, 17, 77, 123, 170, 172, 185, 187, 228, 242, 249, 250 see also EU accession Eurobarometer, 34, 72, 73, 99, 139, 207, 248 EuropeAid, 49, 121 European Commission, 11, 14, 19, 25, 28, 34, 40, 49, 98, 100, 101, 113, 122, 141, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 175, 177, 182, 188, 203, 221, 236, 239, 240 European Consensus on Development, 37, 49, 87, 93, 101, 133, 143, 155, 156, 176, 187, 194, 241 European Council, 154, 155, 175, 176 European Development Fund, 35, 38, 100, 121, 171 European Integration, 20, 180, 186, 223

15 284 Index Europeanization, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 20, 26 31, 43, 46, 48, 50, 59, 62, 66, 67 70, 74, 78, 81, 83, 88, 134, 147, 151, 152, 154, 164, 168, 170 3, 177, 188, 226, 228, 229, 233, 252 European Neighborhood Policy, 123, 178, 179, 249 European Parliament, 176, 177, 193, 223, 239 European Transition Compendium (ETC), 141, Fair Trade, 73, 81 financial crisis, 82, 83, 91, 92, 102, 103, 104, 113, 124, 151, 152, 154, 156, 159, 166, 167, 182, 193, 211, 229, 230, 231 Finland, 6, 111, 167 Food and Agriculture Organization, 115 foreign development aid, 2, 26 Foreign Policy, 3, 13, 15, 20, 26, 29, 33, 34, 39, 50, 58, 63, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 83, 84, 88, 89, 96, 102, 104, 105, 109, 111, 116, 123 7, 131, 146, 152, 154, 158, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, , 185, 188, 189, 194, 195, 198, 199, 218, 219, 222, 232, 242, 243, 252 Foucault, Michel, 18 Georgia, 8, 31, 32, 36, 47, 53, 54, 58, 69, 71, 74, 92, 111, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 154, 165, 182, 186, 197, 199, 204, 205, 222, 226, 237, 244, 249 Germany, 53, 80, 109, 246 global North, 8, 16, 80 global recession, 7, 15, 27, 33, 42 global South, 8, 9, 16, 27, 29, 38, 49, 68, 80, 223, 228, 231, 232 governance, 17, 40, 41, 72, 76, 86, 90, 123, 186, 187, 196, 209, 226, 227, 235, 237, 238 Greece, 7, 67, 246, 248 gross domestic product, 64, 69, 73, 79, 112, 113, 115, 144, 157, 159, 220 gross national income, 49, 74, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 114, 135, 153, 156, 159, 175, 193, 229, 246, 250 see also ODA/GNI ratio growth, 10, 33, 76, 135, 144, 157, 159, 164, 182 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1, 2 historical institutionalism, 15, 16, 17 humanitarian assistance, 34, 85, 93, 109, 112, 117, 207, 208, 245 human rights, 16, 40, 41, 72, 78, 86, 90, 180, 186, 204, 236, 237 Hungary, 5, 7, 17, , 155, 171, 242, 246, 247, 249 hybridity, 26, 170, 172, 189 Iceland, 6, 237 India, 48, 110 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 115, 118 International Development Association, 115, 135 international organizations, 3, 13, 16, 26, 29, 35, 65, 72, 73, 74, 115, 121, 122, 127, 136, 195, 199, 205, 206, 211, 216, 237 Iraq, 6, 14, 45, 117 Kazakhstan, 47, 69, 110, 199 Kenya, 69, 70, 74, 75, 78, 116 Kosovo, 36, 69, 74, 85, 89, 117, 119, 237 Kyrgyzstan, 69, 116, 118, 119 Laos, 64, 131 Latvia, 4, 5, 7, 11, 111, 115, , 171, 184, 241, 246, 250 least developed countries, 14, 93, 126, 134, 197, 211, 215, 222 Lithuania, 5, 109, 111, 155, 167, Macedonia, 69, 74, 89, 92, 119, 199, 200, 204, 205 Malta, 6, 115, 240 methodology, 2, 15, 19, 75, 88, 227 Middle East, 94, 110, 141

16 Index 285 Millennium Development Goals, 14, 16, 42, 86, 88, 112, 116, 122, 134, 135, 171, 181, 184, 193, 194, 205, 207 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 29, 33, 43, 46, 68, 69, 83, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 153, 159, 174, 176, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 196, 203, 220, 222, 235, 236, 237, 246 modernization, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 45, 47, 57, 60, 61, 90, 200 Moldova, 8, 31, 32, 47, 53, 54, 69, 70, 74, 90, 92, 111, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, 128, 154, 165, 179, 186, 197, 199, 204, 205, 222, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237, 244, 247 Mongolia, 31, 64, 69, 131, 143, 244 Montenegro, 69, 70, 74, 89, 90, 119 Mozambique, 45, 69 multilateral, 27, 32, 35, 70, 85, 86, 90, 92, 97, 104, 115, 121, 126, 131, 135, 136, 142, 144, 159, 167, 174, 195, 216, 219, 220, 226, 229, 232, 235 NATO, 14, 36, 65, 69, 75, 77, 85, 126, 138, 152, 154, 178, 179, 181 neighbourhood, 8, 13, 14, 31, 41, 58, 67, 74, 75, 76, 92, 109, 123, 124, 125, 126, 178, 179, 181, 185, 187, 189, 249 New Europe, 6 new member states, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 40, 48, 51, 67, 70, 72, 78, 88, 113, 139, 154, 155, 156, 170, 173, 175, 187, 211, 216, 241, 244, 249 Nicaragua, 110, 131 non-aligned countries/movement, 8, 84, 243 non-governmental organizations, 15, 18, 35, 42 9, 57 62, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 78, 90, 96, 97, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 127, 135, 136, 138, 140, 145, 146, 147, 158, 162, 163, 168, 181 4, , 221, 224, 225, 236, 238, 242, 248, 250, 251 non-state actors, 25, 28, 73, 130, 184 normativity, 10, 12, 13, 15, 112, 116, 122, 164, 179 North Korea, 64, 131 ODA/GNI, 7, 25, 26, 33, 35, 136, 144, 154, 155, 158, 159, 163, 165, 175 OECD DAC, see Development Assistance Committee OECD-ization, 11, 26, 27, 28, 30, 67 Official Development Assistance, 2, 34, 43, 81, 84, 85, 87, 113, 115, 135, 151, 175, 193, 197, 198, 204, 222, 250 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2, 7, 8, 11, 17, 25 31, 35, 39, 43, 48, 67, 77, 90, 91, 105, 115, 118, 122, 126, 127, 132, 136, 215, 226, 231 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 115 outsource, 16, 35, 40, 96, 201, 218, 220, 226, 229, 230, 232 Palestine (Authority), 36, 74, 117, 119, 226 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, 30, 87, 90, 99, 133 path dependency, 5, 64, 66, 78, 132, 133, 181 Poland, 5, 7, 43 62, 109, 139, 145, 166, 171, 229, 242, 246, 247, 248, 249 policy coherence for development, 16, 28, 184, 246 policy-making, 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, 42, 79, 104, 125, 140, 178, 181 politicization, 9, 71 Portugal, 7, 242, 247, 248 positivism, 9 see also post-positivism post-2015, 2, 20, 95, 122, 171, 176, 181, 184, 187 post-cold War period, 44, 49, 58 postcolonialism, 15, 16, 17 post-communism, 1, 7, 8, 25, 182, 209, 243 postdevelopment, 15, 16, 17 post-positivism, 9, 17

17 286 Index poverty, 10, 13, 14, 29, 30, 38, 41, 46, 72, 77, 88, 89, 90, 93, 99, 111, 116, 202, 205, 250 see also poverty eradication, and poverty reduction poverty eradication, 2, 13, 43, 49, 164, 165, 181, 188, 215 poverty reduction, 116, 133, 134, 135, 137, 175, 186, 193, 205, 215, 249 pragmatism, 12, 14, 15, 179 Pre-Accession Assistance, 237, 238 premature donor, priority countries, 31, 36, 41, 76, 86, 89, 92, 101, 102, 111, 118, 120, 194, 197, 216, 222, 224, 226, 235, 237, 244 public financial management, 86, 90, 99, 100 public opinion, 20, 34, 51, 99, 110, 111, 130, 131, 140, 152, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 207, 242, 243, 246, 248 rationalism, 9, 10, 11 Red Cross, 72, 204 re-emerging donor, 5, 17 see also emerging donor reflexivity, 9 Romania, 5, 7, 18, 20, 26, 35, 67, , 235, 240, 246, 247 Russia, 4, 6, 8, 13, 36, 48, 57, 58, 62, 111, 113, 116, 123, 125, 128, 152, 154, 166, 180, 228 Serbia, 31, 69, 70, 74, 89, 134, 137, 138, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 222, 226, 237, 250 Slovakia, 5, 7, 13, 32, 64 80, 145, 155, 238 Slovenia, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 25, , 115, 145, 171, 241, 243, 247 small donor, 12, 82, 92, 95, 100, 101, 166, 226 social learning, 11, 31, 177, 188 soft law, 7, 28, 69, 137, 250 solidarity, 13, 43, 49, 50, 52, 55, 57, 61, 71, 84, 140, 248 Solidarity Fund, 52, 58, 62 Solidarity (Party), 45, 55 7 Southern Neighbourhood, 74, 75, 76 South Soudan, 59, 69, 70, 74, 75, 78 South-South cooperation, 15, 231 Soviet Bloc, 3, 5, 6, 16, 44, 47, 54, 131, 243, 244, 245 Soviet Union, 3, 7, 26, 84, 110, 111, 113, 116, 123 6, 152, 171, 245 see also Eastern Bloc; Soviet bloc Spain, 6, 67, 240, 242, 246, 251 stakeholders, 31, 48, 97, 103, 130, 132, 137, 140, 162, 176, 178, 182, 188, 206, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 224, 227 Sub-Saharan Africa, 10, 14, 31, 49, 70, 84, 88, 117, 126, 127, 180 Sudan, 45, 69 survey, 34, 71, 73, 139, 140, 161, 162, 248 sustainable development, 2, 42, 76, 86, 98, 122, 180, 181, 182, 186, 196, 202, 215, 223 Sweden, 6, 166, 249 Tajikistan, 69, 116, 118, 204, 205 theory, 1 5, 8, 9, 11, 19, 21, 30, 228 Third World, 3, 8, 18, 46, 55, 205, 213, 218, 220, 224 transition experience, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 32, 40, 41, 43, 46, 54, 62, 66, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88, 90, 96, 100, 127, 131, 141 3, 170, 185, 187, 188, 209, 227, 231, 234 8, 239, 240, 241 transparency, 3, 28, 97, 135, 136, 195, 196, 226, 249 Tunisia, 59, 74, 117, 119, 197 Turkey, 4, 237 Ukraine, 8, 31, 36, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 69, 70, 74, 92, 109, 111, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 128, 134, 138, 154, 165, 166, 179, 180, 182, 186, 199, 234, 237, 244, 249, 250 UN Economic Commission for Europe, 219 UNESCO, 72, 115 UNHCR, 115 UNICEF, 115

18 Index 287 United Nations, 49, 55, 112, 115, 122, 126, 127, 171, 179, 181, 184, 195, 197, 205 United Nations Development Program, 32, 115, 132, 162, 224, 226, 227, 237 United States Agency for International Development, 25, 32 UN Millennium Declaration (2000), 2, 176 UNRWA, 226 Uzbekistan, 69, 118, 199, 200 Vietnam, 64, 110, 131, 133, 137, 198, 199, 200 Visegrad Group, 7, 13, 180, 238 Western Balkans, 70, 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 92, 94, 98, 103, 117, 141, 142, 214, 237 Working Party on Development Cooperation, 11, 12, 41, 171 World Bank, 84, 85, 223 Zambia, 31, 119, 198, 244