Skip to main content

The European Union as an International Donor: Perceptions from Latin America and the Caribbean

Abstract

In an era of doing development differently, it is highly important to analyse how priorities of partner countries around the world reinforce or contradict how donors conceive themselves. Based on an elite survey and fifty elite interviews, the current research analyses the connection between the agenda-setting and policy implementation stages in international development. In particular, by looking at the Latin American and Caribbean perceptions of the European Union as an international donor, the analysis finds misalignment between the stated objectives of the EU and the metrics of success that Latin American and Caribbean partners use to judge donors as influential and helpful. The paper shows that this misalignment can explain the limitations of EU potential entrepreneurship in international development through both agenda-setting and policy implementation. Moreover, the analysis finds that Nordic countries outrank the EU in terms of both perceived influence and perceived helpfulness in Latin America and the Caribbean, as do other non-European donors like the United States.

Resumé

À l'ère où l’on cherche à changer la façon dont l’aide au développement est mise en œuvre, il est d’une importance capitale analyser la façon dont les priorités des pays partenaires du monde entier s’alignent sur—ou contredisent—l’image que les bailleurs de financement ont d’eux-mêmes. En se fondant sur une enquête auprès des élites et sur cinquante entretiens avec des personnes issues de l’élite, cette étude analyse le lien entre l’étape de la définition de l'agenda et celle de la mise en œuvre des politiques dans le cadre du développement international. En examinant plus particulièrement les perceptions que l'Amérique latine et les Caraïbes ont de l'Union européenne en tant que bailleur international, l'analyse révèle un décalage entre les objectifs déclarés de l'UE et les indicateurs de succès que les partenaires d'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes utilisent pour juger les bailleurs comme influents et utiles. L’étude montre que ce désalignement peut expliquer les limites de l'esprit d'entreprise potentiel de l'UE dans le développement international à la fois par la définition de l'agenda et la mise en œuvre des politiques. En outre, l'analyse révèle que les pays nordiques dépassent l'UE à la fois en termes d'influence et d'utilité perçues en Amérique latine et dans les Caraïbes, et la même chose s'applique aux autres bailleurs non européens tels que les États-Unis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source: The calculations are based on the AidData (2018) survey data

Fig. 2

Source: Donors are ranked according to their scores in the AidData (2018) survey data

Fig. 3

Source: The calculations are based on the AidData (2018) survey data

Fig. 4

Source: Donors are ranked according to their scores in the AidData (2018) survey data

Notes

  1. 1.

    Different from measuring perceptions of helpfulness during the implementation stage, measuring policy success involves different indicators, dealing with the final results of a specific programme, such as the number of approved legislative initiatives, number of schools or kilometres of road that were constructed.

  2. 2.

    Listening to Leaders Survey data has previously been used to evaluate the influence of many other donors, including the World Bank (see Knack et al., 2020).

  3. 3.

    Unlike traditional elite surveys that are based on convenience sampling (where a population of interest is not identified, and sample representativeness cannot be evaluated), the Listening to Leaders Survey first identified the populations of interest in 126 low-income and middle-income countries and carefully constructed sampling frames for each of these countries in a consistent and comparable manner. The population of interest includes those individuals with direct knowledge of how government policies and programs were prioritised, designed and implemented in low and lower-middle income countries.

References

  1. Ackrill, R., and A. Kay. 2011. Multiple streams in EU policymaking: the case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy 18: 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackrill, R., A. Kay, and N. Zahariadis. 2013. Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy 20: 871–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AIDDATA. 2018. The 2017 Listening to Leaders Survey Aggregate Dataset. Williamsburg, VA: AidData.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alimi, D. 2015. Going global: policy entrepreneurship of the Global Commission on drug policy. Public Administration 93: 874–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayllón, B. 2012. The Promotion of South-South Cooperation. In A new European Union Development Cooperation Policy with LAC, ed. E.P. European Parliament. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bain, C., D. Booth, and L. Wild. 2016. Doing development differently at the World Bank. London: ODI.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beeson, M., and D. Stone. 2013. The changing fortunes of a policy entrepreneur: The case of Ross Garnaut. Australian Journal of Political Science 48: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Botto, M. 2015. El dilema de ser y estar Los límites de la integración sudamericana. In GarcíaDelgado, D, ed. C. RuizDelFerrier. FLACSO: Estado y desarrollo inclusivo en la multipolaridad. Desafíos y políticas públicas. Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carbone, M. 2007. The European Union and International Development. The politics of foreign aid New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaban, N., O. Elgström, S. Kelly, and L.S. Yi. 2013. Images of the EU beyond its Borders: Issue-Specific and Regional Perceptions of European Union Power and Leadership. Journal of Common Market Studies 51: 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Child, J., Y. Lu, and T. Tsai. 2007. Institutional Entrepreneurship in Building an Environmental Protection System for the People’s Republic of China. Organization Studies 28: 1013–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clemens, M.-A., and M. Kremer. 2016. The new role for the World Bank. Journal of Economic Perspectives 30: 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Copeland, P., and S. James. 2014. Policy windows, ambiguity and Commission entrepreneurship: Explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic reform agenda. Journal of European Public Policy 21: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Custer, S., M. Dilorenzo, T. Masaki, T. Sethi, and A. Harutyunyan. 2018. Listening to Leaders 2018: Is development cooperation tuned-in or tone-deaf? Williamsburg, VA: AidData.

    Google Scholar 

  15. David, C.-P. 2015. Policy entrepreneurs and the reorientation of National Security Policy under the G. W. Bush Administration (2001–04). Politics & Policy 43: 163–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Delputte, S., and J. Orbie. 2014. Exploring the role of the EU in donor coordination on the ground: perspectives from Tanzania and Zambia. European Journal of Development Research 25: 78.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dominguez, R. 2019. Strategic partner and model of governance: EU perceptions in Mexico. In Shaping the EU Global Strategy. The European Union in International Affairs ed. Chaban, N, M. Holland. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ECLAC. 2018. Hundreds of top global and regional leaders discuss how to curb inequalities to boost sustainable growth in LAC and the Caribbean [Online]. Available: https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/hundreds-top-global-and-regional-leaders-discuss-how-curb-inequalities-boost [Accessed 21st December 2019]

  19. European Commission, E. C. 2005. European Consensus on Development [Online]. Brussels: European Commission. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/publication-the-european-consensus-on-development-200606_en.pdf [Accessed 10th November 2019]

  20. European Commission, E. C. 2017. European Consensus on Development [Online]. Brussels: European Commission. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/european-consensus-on-development-final-20170626_en.pdf [Accessed 1st December 2019].

  21. European Union, E. U. 2016. Consultation seminar on EU's regional programmes in LAC in Argentina - October 2016 [Online]. Brussels: European Commission. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/devco-aap-regional/latin-america_it?page=11 [Accessed 21st November 2019].

  22. Fioramonti, L., and A. Poletti. 2008. Facing the Giant: Southern perspectives on the European Union. Third World Quarterly 29: 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Galtung, J. 1973. The European Community: A superpower in the making. Allen and Unwin: Oslo, Universitetforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herweg, N. 2017. Theoretical approach to the policy process: The multiple streams framework. In European Union Policy-Making: The Regulatory Shift in Natural Gas Market Policy, ed. N. Herweg. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Knack, S., Parks B., Harutyunyan, A. and Dilorenzo, M. 2020. How Does the World Bank Influence the Development Policy Priorities of Low-Income and Lower-Middle Income Countries?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9225. Washington, D.C.

  26. Lechini, G. 2014. La Cooperación Sur-Sur en las Políticas Exteriores de Argentina y Brasil en el siglo XXI. Rosario: UNR Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lucarelli, S., and L.E. Fioramonti. 2010. External perceptions of the European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mannerss, I. 2002. Normative power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies 40: 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization 52: 943–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mintrom, M. 1997. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41: 738–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mintrom, M. 2000. Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mintrom, M., and P. Norman. 2009. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal 37: 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mintrom, M., C. Salisbury, and J. Luetjens. 2014. Policy entrepreneurs and promotion of Australian state knowledge economies. Australian Journal of Political Science 49: 423–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mukherjee, I., and S. Giest. 2019. Designing policies in uncertain contexts: Entrepreneurial capacity and the case of the European Emission Trading Scheme. Public Policy and Administration 34: 262–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. OECD. 2019. Development in transition [Online]. OECD. Available: https://www.oecd.org/dev/development-in-transition.htm [Accessed 1st November 2019].

  37. Onar, N.F., and K. Nicolaïdis. 2013. The Decentring Agenda: Europe as a post-colonial power. Cooperation and Conflict 48: 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Orbie, J., and M. Carbone. 2015. Introduction: The Europeanisation of development policy. European Politics and Society 17: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Riggirozzi, P. 2010. Region, regioness and regionalism. Towards a new synthesis. Buenos Aires: LATN Working Paper, 130.

  40. Sandrin, P., and A. Ribeiro Hoffmann. 2019. The EU seen from Brazil: Images and perceptions. In Shaping the EU Global Strategy. The European Union in International Affairs, eds. Chaban, N, M. Holland. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schulz, N.-S. 2010. Why the EU is not yet a mature development partner. FRIDE.

  42. Selleslaghs, J. 2016. The EU’s performance in LAC’s fight against drugs and related organized crime. Global Affairs 2: 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wild, L., M. Andrews, J. Pett, and H. Dempster. 2016. Doing development differently: Who we are, what we’re doing and what we’re learning. London: ODI.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The corresponding author is also grateful to the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science for the postdoctoral fellowship at Waseda University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ileana Daniela Serban.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serban, I.D., Harutyunyan, A. The European Union as an International Donor: Perceptions from Latin America and the Caribbean. Eur J Dev Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00321-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Perceptions
  • International development
  • Entrepreneurship