Growing pains: development policy in the new Europe

New European member states are struggling to meet EU = standards on=20 development policy, says Simon Lightfoot.

In 2003, a BOND briefing paper argued that the planned 2004 = enlargement of=20 the European Union (EU) =93has the potential to radically change EU aid = policies=20 and regional focus=94. Four years on, has this prediction come true?

The 2004 enlargement was significant. Never before had so many = recipients of=20 EU aid joined the Union and taken on the commitment to become aid = donors.

Previous to the 2004 accession, the Directorate General for = Development=20 highlighted that the new member states=92 development policies were = characterised=20 by:

low governmental commitment=20
lack of significant constituency for development cooperation=20
low prioritisation of poverty reduction=20
lack of funds for overseas development assistance=20
lack of broad-based participation in policy-making.

Forecasts regarding for the new members states=92 ability to meet the = commitments they had signed up to were not optimistic.

Geographical focus problematic

A particularly problematic issue faced by the Central and Eastern = European=20 (CEE) states was the geographical focus of EU development policy.

The new member states were seen to have limited historical = connections to=20 developing countries and a major focus on neighbouring countries, in = particular=20 the former Yugoslavia and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

This can be seen by examining the priority countries of the new = member=20 states: nearby Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia are examples of countries = where new=20 member state donors are active. As the rapporteur for a recent European=20 Parliament Report, Danute Budreikaite MEP, stresses: "Historically the = new=20 member states have worked very closely with neighbouring countries. Now = they=20 should also be aware that development policy is part of their = obligations and=20 that certain international commitments must be fulfilled.=94

Of particular interest are the EU=92s relations with the African, = Caribbean and=20 Pacific (ACP) bloc, with commentators noting subtle changes in attitudes = towards=20 the ACP group, in part due to the lack of historic connection between = the new=20 member states and Africa. Having said that, recent revisions to aid = policies in=20 the Czech Republic and Poland have seen them prioritise Zambia and = Tanzania=20 respectively, and both, along with Bulgaria (who joined the EU in 2007), = also=20 prioritise Angola.

In light of the need for policy coherence and complementarity, it is = argued=20 that it makes more sense for new member states to be active in those = countries=20 and sectors where they have a comparative advantage. These sectors = include=20 democratisation, market liberalisation, and managing transition to EU=20 membership. Of particular relevance to this study is the fact that the = new=20 member states have experience in managing the transition from aid = recipients to=20 donors.

Poverty focus under threat

The focus on these sectors has lead to concerns that enlargement = would shift=20 EU development policy away from its poverty focus.

Of all the new member states, only Hungary had an unequivocal = commitment to=20 poverty reduction in its official documents. Latvia had a priority of = =93smooth=20 integration into the world economy=94, whilst for Lithuania and Poland, = issues=20 such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights were prioritised. = These=20 positions of course have not prevented the recent commitment to poverty=20 reduction as part of the EU-Africa Strategy.

So what are the overall implications of enlargement for EU = development=20 policy?

To a large extent, the new member states do not at present have the = political=20 and public will, nor the government structures in place, to = significantly alter=20 its current direction.

Development is still not a high political priority, due, in part, to = a =93lower=20 level of familiarity with development aid issues=94 (EuroBarometer, = 2007).=20 Excellent work being carried out by NGOs to raise public awareness in = these=20 states but it is unlikely that this situation will change in the near = future, as=20 the new member states continue to grapple with the effects of their = rapid=20 economic transition.

Simon Lightfoot is a lecturer in European Politics at the University = of=20 Leeds.
Email: s.j.lightfoot@leeds.ac.uk

BOND, Regent's Wharf, 8 All Saints = Street, London,=20 N1 9RL
Registered Charity No. 1068839 | = Company=20 Registration No. 3395681 (England and Wales)

BOND - Networking for International = Development =A9=20 2008